(A study on four selected universities)

Principal Investigator: Ayenew Yihune

Co-Investigators: Teklay Abay and Habtamu Assefa

Adigrat University
College of Engineering and Technology
03/06/2015
 ABSTRACT

This report documents the results of a research aimed to explore the current university-
industry interaction works in Ethiopian universities, identify the main challenges in the
process of establishing good interaction and propose ways for promoting collaboration
works between industries and the whole academia in general and universities in particular.
The study presents the university perspective of university-industry interactions with
emphasis on types of interactions, barriers to successful interactions and promotional
measures to improve interactions.

The study shows that university-industry linkage is at a growing stage in Ethiopian

universities while it has long distance to go forward, as can be seen from international
experience. The common types of university-industry interactions were limited to what can
be regarded as conventional types as the predominant types of university interactions with
industry consisted of student internship program, consultancies and training programmes.

Lack of laboratory facilities, inadequate infrastructures (like communication, transport,

journals, books, etc), time constraint due to heavy teaching load and lack of strong industry
linkage offices are identified by the academics as the main barriers for collaboration with
industries. Moreover, improving laboratory facilities, conducting workshops for industry
staff, encouraging regular industry visits by academics and setting up strong and
decentralized industry linkage offices are identified by the academics as the main measures
to promote collaboration with industries.

1
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. 2
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Background ............................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Objectives .................................................................................................................. 3
1.3. Scope of the Research ............................................................................................... 4
1.4. Structure of the Report ............................................................................................. 4
2. Literature Review .................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5
2.2. Forms of University-Industry Linkage ....................................................................... 6
2.3. Advantages of University-Industry Linkage............................................................... 8
2.3.1.General .............................................................................................................. 8
2.3.2.Advantages for Developing Countries ............................................................... 9
2.4. Challenges in University-Industry Linkage ............................................................. 10
2.5. University-Industry Linkage Experiences ................................................................ 11
2.5.1. Academia-Industry-Government interaction in China .................................... 11
2.5.2. Academia-Industry-Government interaction in the Republic of Korea .......... 17
3. Methodology ....................................................................................................... 26
4. Results of the Study ............................................................................................. 27
4.1. Characteristics of the sample departments ........................................................... 27
4.2. Status of Interaction with Industry ........................................................................ 27
4.3. Types of Interaction with Industry ......................................................................... 28
4.4. Perception of academics on barriers to University-Industry interaction ............... 30
4.5. Perception of academics on Promotional Measures to University-Industry
interaction .............................................................................................................. 32
5. Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................... 35
6. References ........................................................................................................... 38
7. Appendix I ........................................................................................................... 39

2
 1. Introduction
1.1. Background

Recently, the role of university-industry interaction for the economic development of a

country is taking the attention of policy makers both in developed and developing countries.
Such linkages are being considered to have a huge importance for technological
development and economic competitiveness of one country.

As one of the rapidly growing countries in the world, Ethiopia is undergoing various
transformation works. Increasing the number and capacity of universities has been taken as
one of the major part of the transformation works. This is because the country has
considered universities as one of the most important actors for its development. Although
these universities are expected to contribute for the development of the country through
different ways including producing quality graduates which will satisfy the need of the
production sector, research and development works and technology transfer, these
universities are now a days working mainly on producing large amount of educated man
power.

Many of the universities in the country have already started industry linkage works. The
oldest form of industry linkage work which is common in many of the universities is giving
consultancy service. Recently most of the universities have started student placement works
through a formal University industry linkage office which is basically for students in
engineering area. The major problems in this linkage works are; first, these industry linkage
works are basically limited to student placement and consultancy. Second, the works which
are being done are not even being done in a well-organized and controlled way.

Identifying the main problems prohibiting strong and dynamic linkage between universities
and the productive sector and proposing the ways that will help develop successful linkage
will have a huge importance in moving forward the current interaction between universities
and industries. The aim of this research work is to access the current university industry
interaction works in Ethiopian universities, identify the main challenges in the process of
establishing good interaction and propose ways for rectifying those challenges and
enhancing the interaction.

1.2. Objectives

The general objective of this study is to access the current university-industry interaction in
Ethiopian universities and to propose ways for strong university-industry interaction
relevant to the country.

The specific objectives of the research work are:

Studying the general trends for university-industry linkage adopted worldwide.

Assessing the current university-industry linkage in Ethiopian universities.

3
 Studying the current interaction works in Ethiopian universities in comparison with
international experience.
Identifying the challenges which are prohibiting good linkage.
Proposing ways for strong university-industry interaction.

1.3. Scope of the Research

This research attempts to explore the general developments in university-industry linkages

in the world and tries to see the experience of Ethiopian universities in the view of those
worldwide developments. The research tries to identify the main drawbacks in the current
industry linkage works in Ethiopian universities. The research also suggests the ways to
improve the university-industry interaction works in Ethiopia and finally proposes a model
organizational structure recommended to be adopted by Ethiopian universities. Four sample
Ethiopian technology institutes are selected for this purpose. These universities are selected
based on their experience in university-industry interaction works and their
representativeness of such works for universities all over the country.

The research focuses only on the university perspective of university-industry interaction.

The industry perspective is not included here because of time and budget constraints and
because it is believed that the university perspective is the most important area that needs
study.

1.4. Structure of the report

In the next chapter literature review on the study topic is provided. Chapter 3 is about the
methodology of the research, which provides the method of data collection, analysis and
related topics. The results obtained from the research are discussed in chapter 4. Finally,
chapter 5 contains the conclusions and recommendations for successful linkage between
universities and the productive sector.

4
2. Literature Review
2.1. Introduction

The primary duties expected from universities are thought to be teaching-learning, research
and community service (which can be interpreted in various ways). These responsibilities
are not basically independent rather they are works overlapping each other. Most of the
universities in Africa are not actively involving in the third mission and consequently they
are labelled to be an “ivory towers” (Fourie, 2003). The teaching learning and researches
with less or no benefit for the productive sector remained to be their basic tasks for many
years. However, in recent times governments, including many African’s, are urging
universities to take the initiative in establishing a strong linkage with the community in
general and industries in particular (Ssebuwufu, 2012).

Innovation and technological advancement are key elements in a countries economic

competitiveness and economic development. Universities are expected play a central role in
the development of such works both by producing the required professionals and
participating directly or indirectly in it. Although this is the truth in one side, industries and
the government should also have their share in establishing strong linkage between
universities and industries to bring innovation, technological advancement and other
benefits related to these.

The perception regarding the role of universities, industries and governments in the process
of innovation has been changing from time to time. An earlier perception on the role of
universities and other research bodies is what is known as the “linear model of innovation”.
According to this model universities and research institutions are considered as creators and
disseminators of knowledge. It was thought that this knowledge would be absorbed, in a
linear fashion, from basic to applied research and will be a major ingredient for innovation
in the productive sector (Martin, 2011).

The recent model, which is also termed as “mode 2” (Gibbons, 1998), perceives academic
institutions to have an “entrepreneurial” mode of functioning, in addition to their former
roles, to engage directly in economic development through enterprise and spin-off creation
(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). Now a days, many enterprises have developed internal
R&D capacity which reduced the dominance of academic institutions in the production and
dissemination of scientific knowledge, and universities are also engaging themselves directly
in the production process. So now, the process of innovation cannot be taken as simply a
linear process, rather it occurs in a spiral mode through strategic networks between
different actors at the national and international levels (Martin, 2011).

The perception regarding the role of the government in guiding university-industry linkages
has recently evolved through different proposed frameworks. The framework, “triangle of
university-industry-government relations” was proposed by Sabato and Botana (1968). They
also stated that the government in developing countries should play a leading role in the

5
development of University-industry interactions. Other more recent frameworks include the
“national innovation systems” (Freeman, 1987) and the “Triple helix of university-industry-
government relations” (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1996, 1997).

The triple helix model considers the academia-industry-government linkage as an

interconnected dynamic relationship rather than a simple one way communication. It also
suggests that the role of each actor in the linkage will change over time and these will in
turn bring in a change in the internal structures of the acting bodies (Martin, 2011). The
linkage here is overlapping with relatively independent institutional spheres and hybrid
organizations emerging at the interfaces (Esham, 2008).

The perception regarding the role of the government in supporting the linkage between
universities and industries varies depending on the political ideology followed by it. Under
the ideology of socialism the government was considered as the one who plans and directs
the interaction. This will leave little space for ideas coming from the bottom and will in turn
discourage innovation. In the liberal western world, the government was interfering in the
university industry interactions only when it is thought that there is a failure which cannot
be rectified by the two bodies. But, in recent decades most western governments and many
emerging economies are shifting their role from acting at failures to active involvers by
developing targeted science and technology policies, legislative frameworks and incentive
mechanisms for initiating university industry linkages. These works have basically the
following aims (Martin, 2011):

- Creating incentives for joint university industry R&D activities.

- Supporting the development of new technology based firms (Spin-offs).
- Creating a climate and structures for innovation.
- Creating enabling framework conditions for sustainable university industry
interactions.

2.2. Forms of University-Industry Linkage

University industry linkages have gone through different stages. The early forms of linkages
include student placement schemes (internship), staff exchanges, consultancy services,
continuing professional development and joint R&D. the more recent linkage works include
small enterprise development (i.e. the development of spin-offs), research parks and
patenting (Martin, 2011).

According to a research by Dr. M. Esham the linkage works can be categorized into three as
in the figure below (Esham, 2008).

6
 Figure 2.1: Categories of university-industry interactions

The different forms of interactions are briefly discussed here under (Esham, 2008):

Provision of consultancy and technical services

One or more parties from the university or research center provide advice, information or
technical services. They have formal written contract, generally short term and specific.
Faculty members or senior researchers can be hired to consult during the time they are
allowed to work outside the universities.

Joint venture of R&D

A contract is drawn between university research center and a contractor in which costs
associated with the work are shared as specified in the contract. The two parties can work
together from the stage of R&D to commercialization. It must be of mutual benefit to
industry and the research centers, and commercially valuable data may be protected for a
limited period of time. It provides some assurance that the best brain in the business will be
brought together to bear on the problem, and that there will be a balance between long
term, high risk research and short-term work which can be promptly commercialized
(Moses, 1985).

7
Licensing

Licensing is the transfer of less-than-ownership rights in intellectual property to a third

party, to permit the third party to use intellectual property. It is preferred by small business.

Spin-offs

An entrepreneurial spin-off arises when an entrepreneur leaves an organization to start a

firm of his/her own. Spin-offs can be categorized depending on what organization they are
spun off from, and on where the entrepreneur has gained his/her background experience
(Perez and Sanchez, 2003). Spin-offs from academic institutions have received a lot of
attention in recent times. Technologies developed in the institutions are commercialized
through new enterprises wherein students and faculty may participate (Basant and Chandra,
2007).

Science Parks

Science parks have become a popular mechanism to promote university-industry

interactions. There is no uniformly accepted definition of a Science Park, and there are
several similar terms used to describe similar developments, such as “Research Park”,
“Technology Park”, “Business Park”, “Innovation Centre”, etc. (Monck et al., 1988). United
Kingdom Science Park Association (UKSPA, 1985) defines a science park in terms of the
following features: ‘‘A science park is a property-based initiative which: has formal
operational links with a university or other higher education or research institution; is
designed to encourage the formation and growth of knowledge-based businesses and other
organizations normally resident on site; has a management function which is actively
engaged in the transfer of technology and business skills to the organizations on site.’’

The first science park was established in Stanford, in the 1950s followed by the Cambridge
Science Park, UK, and Sophia Antipolis, France, in the late 1960s. In many European
countries it was not until the 1980s and 1990s that significant numbers of science parks
were established (Storey and Tether, 1998).

Firms located in Science Parks were significantly more likely to have a link with a local
university than off-park firms (Löfsten and Lindelof, 2002). Studies have shown a direct
relationship between the proximity of the science park to the university and the probability
that the academic curriculum will shift from basic toward applied research.

2.3. Advantages of University-Industry Linkage

2.3.1.General

Generally, university industry linkages are used to bridge the gap between the academic
world and the production sector. They will serve as a means to change the knowledge
developed in academic institutions into innovation. They will also help to produce graduates
who are familiar with the productive sector (Martin, 2011).

8
The importance of such linkage for academic institutions includes (Sanchez, 1995):

The opportunity to access the needs of the economy and to develop its activities
accordingly through income from the sales of technology;
The opportunity to place students in industry so that classroom learning can be
related to practical experience;
Access to industry for both fundamental and applied research;
Access to the protected markets;
Business stature enhancement;
Improvement in new technology implementation;
Creation of goodwill;
New product development and spin-offs;
Cost savings (lower production cost);
Patenting.

The importance of such linkage for the productive sector includes (Sanchez, 1995):

A supply of better qualified graduates having more relevant training because

industry’s needs have been identified;
Access to the university’s physical facilities and the expertise of its staff;
Access to research, consulting and data collection of the university;
An improved public image in the society in which it operates, which means that
more talented students will be attracted to the industrial sector;
Gained technical knowledge;
Gained technology services not available before;
Quality improvement;
Cost savings;
New markets;
Manufacturing time reduction.

2.3.2.Advantages for Developing Countries

African universities have been criticized as ivory towers that churn out graduates and
research that are irrelevant to the needs of employers and the social, economic, and
technical challenges facing African economies. There is a growing perception that the
knowledge and skills acquired by students at African universities do not meet the
requirements of industry and the wider economy. This mismatch, coupled with under-
training in the critical skills of problem-solving, analytical thinking and communication is
blamed, at least in part, for the emerging high graduate unemployment and under-
employment in many parts of Africa (Pauw et al, 2008). There is a need to bring together
universities with productive sector representatives to update and upgrade curriculum to
ensure that students graduate with relevant skills for the workforce. It is also increasingly
recognized that universities should play a pivotal role in applying research and innovation to

9
address socio-economic problems and promote innovation for economic growth by forging
strategic partnerships with the productive sector of the economy and national innovation
systems.

In the broader literature, perceived benefits from university-industry collaboration include:

providing alternative funding channels in an era of constrained financing; access to/or
acquisition of state-of-the-art equipment; improved curriculum and training in technology-
oriented programmes and problem-solving; enhanced employment prospects for students;
supplemental income for academic staff; and clearer contribution of universities to the
economy, among others (World Economic Forum, 2011; Martin, 2000). In the context of
fiscal constraints, graduate unemployment, and the need for universities to demonstrate
greater accountability to society and respond to national development imperatives, the
topic of university-industry linkages is becoming increasingly prominent in the discourse on
higher education in Africa.

Although strengthening university-industry linkages offers many potential benefits,

enthusiasm should be tampered with realism and recognition of the trade-offs inherent in
promoting such linkages. While some universities have prospered significantly through large
research contracts and the commercialization of marketable technology, many others have
not necessarily accrued substantial revenue through activities directed towards the
productive sector, though they have still benefitted in other ways (Goransson and
Brundenius, 2011). Although working with co-operatives, farmers, and micro-enterprises
may not represent highly profitable activities, such engagement, nonetheless, plays an
important social and economic function that should not be undervalued. Thus, the focus on
commercialization needs to be balanced against the broader social mission of the university.

While promoting industry-relevant research and entrepreneurialism, universities must

guard against a number of potential negative externalities. Universities must balance
competing interests, such as: industry secrecy stipulations and profit-seeking against the
traditional university practice of open communication and publication (Clark, 2011); support
for basic versus applied, and scientific versus social research (Gulbrandsen and Smeby,
2005); providing industry-specific versus general training; monitoring academic staff time
spent on research versus teaching (Kruss, 2008). They must also ensure that research is
conducted in an ethical, interest-free way (Hernes and Martin, 2001).

2.4. Challenges in University-Industry Linkage

One important barrier that has been widely discussed in literature is the inevitable cultural
difference (Decter et al., 2007, Barnes, 2002, Cyert, 1997, Siegel, 2003) arising due to these
differences. Cultural barriers are pervasive in U-I interactions, given that stakeholders
operate under diverse organizational environments and have different norms, standards,
and values (Siegel, 2003). Firms typically do not want researchers to publish their results
and share information with colleagues and the general public. Instead, they view technology

10
as something to be kept proprietary and used for strategic advantage in the pursuit of
profits.

Typical aspects University Industry

Focus of the R&D Basic research; curiosity- Applied research; exp.
oriented develop.
Basic rationale Advance knowledge Increase efficiency
Aim New ideas Profits
Characteristics Idea-centered Practical, product-
centered
Framework Open Close, confidential
Evaluation By peers By the boss
Schedule Open-ended Tight, predetermined
Recognition Scientific honours Salary increases

The academics believe that the body of knowledge generated through scientific activity is
subject not to private, but to public ownership. This is contradictory to the norms of most
industrial organizations. They tend to regard their scientific and technological know-how as
proprietary hence, one need not be surprised to find the dilemma “freedom of publication
versus secrecy of the research findings” as a major topic in the barrier literature on
university-industry collaborations (Dierdonck, 1990).
In university-industry collaboration, given the early stage of technology development,
financial barriers to innovation may be strong given the imperfections of the financial
markets for these early stage ventures. This is often a motive for why governments provide
additional funding for industry–science collaboration (Veugelers and Cassiman, 2005).
Issues concerning the ownership of the intellectual property rights also create tensions
(Cyert and Goodman, 1997). The scientist would want protection of proprietary rights of
inventions even before proceeding with the partnership. But the acquisition of such rights
may be an expensive, long, and difficult process. Industry may also expect ownership of the
technology by virtue of its investment in the development process. As pointed out by Hall et
al., (2000) in some cases intellectual property right issues represent an insurmountable
barrier which prevents the sought-after research partnership from ever coming about.
According to a study by Siegel et al., (2003) industrialist commonly perceived that
universities are too aggressive in exercising intellectual property rights. This results in a hard
line on negotiations, excess concern on the part of university administrators that they will
not realize sufficient revenue, and unrealistic expectations.
Time is another barrier for both partners. The industrialist most often thinks in terms of
months, while the academic researcher often provides himself with years to accomplish a
certain research interest (Dierdonck et al., 1990).

2.5. University-Industry Linkage Experiences

2.5.1. Academia-Industry-Government interaction in China (Lan Xue and Ling Zhou)

Since the economic reform in 1978, China has become one of the fastest developing
countries in the world. Prior to 1978, the large part of china’s economic output was directed
by the state, which set production goals, controlled prices and allocated resources

11
throughout most of the economy. Under such a planned system china’s economy was
relatively stagnant and inefficient due to lack of market incentives. The main components of
the 1978 reform were the following:

1. Price and ownership incentives were initiated for farmers.

2. In order to promote free market and foreign investment the government established
economic zones which has the autonomy of reforming free market and attract
overseas investors by offering favourable tax and trading conditions.
3. Economic control over state owned enterprises was decentralized to local
governments.
4. Economic policy making in several economic sectors was decentralized.

Under such reforms, china’s GDP experienced a high speed development, reaching in 2005
over 50 times the figure of 1978. The ownership structure has also been changed
substantially with the government encouraging private ownership. In 1978, public
ownership contributed 99.1 percent of the GDP. According to a recent data, the private
sector of the economy accounted for 65 percent of GDP in 2005. While the private sector is
increasingly boosting china’s economy, the state owned sector maintains its dominant
position in strategic industries such as energy and infrastructure.

Traditional role of universities in China’s national innovation system

The national innovation system of new China before 1978 was directly adopted from the
soviet model, which emphasized centralized management and planning, with the
government playing a major role as:

The sole source of financial support for research work

As a “grand master” defining the division of labour among different institutional
players, project planning and execution, direct supervision over research institutes,
and unified deployment of research resources.
As the pivot for the knowledge flows among different research entities.

12
 Figure 2.2: China’s national innovation system and universities since 1950s

Under such a model, R&D work has undertaken by a research network composed of the
Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) and a number of research institutes directly under the
supervision of central government, different ministries and local governments, with projects
and funds being directly deployed by the government. Universities at this time were mainly
set up to train talents for other sectors. The only tie of research institutes and industries
with universities was accepting graduates. At the same time, the industrial sector did not
take up research responsibilities, nor did it connect with the research network directly,
rather the interaction was under the guidance of government.

The transition of China’s national innovation system and the changing role of universities

Beginning in 1978, China’s national innovation system entered a new era with the
introduction of a series of institutional reforms, the establishment of the technology market
and its further development with a range of laws on patents and technology contracts, and
the successful enactment of laws on technology transfer. Another important step was the
1979 regulation that explicitly prescribed universities as centers for both teaching and
scientific research. This marked universities’ formal entrance into China’s national science
research system.

Great changes also occurred in research institutes, which were originally the only players in
china’s R&D activities. Public research institutes (PRIs) in china prior to the reform can be
divided into three groups. The first group is made up of the 122 research institutes afflieted
with and administered by CAS. In 1985, these institutes employed close to 60,000 research

13
staff. These research institutes were engaged in a wide spectrum of activities including basic
and applied research, development, design and other science and technology services.

The second group of PRIs is made up of research institutes and facilities under china’s
national ministries. In 1985, there were 622 state-level research institutes administered by
more than 50 ministries and commissions and employing just over 200,000 researchers.
Most of these were engaged in various R&D activities, with an emphasis on the
experimental and development work required by their particular industry.

The third group consists of research institutes and facilities subordinated to the government
at the provincial level. In 1985, 3,946 provincial research institutes employed more than
310,000 researchers providing services in R&D, engineering design and technology transfer.

The 1985 resolution on the structural reform of China’s science and technology system set
clear goals, outlined guiding principles and provided directions for the reform to proceed.
According to the resolution, the fundamental objectives of the reform were to apply results
from science and technology research to production widely and rapidly, to make full use of
science and technology personnel, to greatly empower science and technology as the
driving force for the economy and to promote economic and social development. The
guiding principle of the reform was that “economic development must rely on science and
technology, while science and technology research must render services to economic
construction”.

As one of the objects of China’s 1985 resolution on the reform of the science and
technology system, the internal management of PRIs changed drastically, giving them far
greater autonomy. Additionally, in 1992 the contract responsibility system was introduced
in technology development PRIs. The previous policies were all market-oriented, which alos
generated concerns about a negative impact on academic research. To balance this out, the
government initiated a major national research programme called the Knowledge
Innovation Programme (KIP), which focused support on CAS to regain its strength in basic
and strategic research. A unique government initiative, KIP is a reform and funding
programme targeted at the research institutes in CAS.

In 1999, the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Economic and Trade Commission
announced restructuring plans for 242 PRIs, followed by plans for another 664 PRIs. These
restructuring plans included merging PRIs into existing companies, reorganizing them into
companies or turning them into non-profit research institutes to which the government
would no longer provide guaranteed financial support.

In this period, China’s universities have shown their great potential in knowledge innovation
and commercialization. In 2004, over 437,000 researchers were involved in science and
technology work in universities, i.e. 12.55 percent of the national total. In the nations R&D
expenditure on basic research, universities accounted for 40.6 percent. Meanwhile, among

14
the papers being published domestically, universities accounted for 64.4 percent. Moreover,
universities are cooperating more closely with the industrial sector and research institutes,
and the means for them to interact with each other have diversified greatly to include joint
research, human resource training and personnel exchange programmes.

In the current stage of reform, universities are not only designated as places for teaching
and training, they are main institutions responsible for the production and application of
knowledge. The border between universities and the industrial sector is becoming more
ambiguous: on the one hand, universities are directly participating in economic activities; on
the other hand, enterprises are beginning to set up private universities in order to expand
business in the higher education system.

15
Figure 2.3: Innovation entities in China’s current national innovation system

Universities and colleges in China work closely with the industrial sector in science and
technology activities. This can be tracked back to the reform in 1980s, when the new
Chinese national innovation system began to take shape. In 2004, the industrial sector was
the second largest source of science and technology funding for universities, providing
nearly 38 percent of total funding to universities.

16
The main pull factor that initiated interaction between universities and industries was the
lack of industrial R&D capability, which forced the industrial sector to go around in search of
technical guidance from universities and research institutes. In the contrary, slow reform in
the higher education system and government policy orientation was a push factor which
slowed interaction between universities and industries.

Since the 1985 science and technology system reform, universities have developed various
linkages to the market. Of all the forms of academia-industry linkage, technology contracts
and university run enterprises are probably the most common. While university licencing
activities have been on the rise, they are limited to the universities with strong engineering
disciplines that are the most active in patenting. As a new form, joint research centers are
making a strong appearance as mechanisms for cooperation between universities and
international companies which has also gained considerable support from the Chinese
government. University based science parks have become popular in recent years, but have
been built mostly in major cities with dynamic entrepreneurial activities.

The two main government policies which have reshaped China’s national innovation system
were the 1985 resolution and the 1996 strategy of revitalizing the nation through science
and education. On the other hand, different national programmes are launched to support
general policies in promoting science and technology for economic development. The above
two policy documents would have been useless if there were no specific programmes to
support them. These programmes can be summarized as follows:

Key technologies R&D programme (1982)

Spark programme (1986)
National science and technology achievement diffusion programme (1990)
Innovation fund for small and medium sized enterprises (Innofund) (1999)
The high-tech research and development programme (1986)
Torch programme (1988)
State key laboratory programme (1984)
The national natural science foundation of china (NSFC) (1986)
The national basic research priorities programme (1992)
The knowledge innovation programme (KIP) (1998)

2.5.2. Academia-Industry-Government interaction in the republic of Korea (Sunyang

Chung)

South Korean companies have attained remarkable technological capabilities since the
country’s industrialization. Within a couple of decades, these companies have produced
technologies that rank among the world’s best. These are based on their in-house R&D

17
activities and their active collaboration with universities and government sponsored
research institutes.

It was only at the beginning of the 1980s that South Korean companies started in-house
R&D activities and hence interaction with other innovation actors. Before this, the country’s
public research institutes (PRIs), which began to be established at the end of the 1960s, had
played a leading role in the national innovation system since industrialization. At the
beginning of the 1980s, however, companies started to pour their efforts into R&D
activities, in particular by establishing their own research institutes until the number
reaches over 10,000 private research institutes in 2004. Initially, companies focused on their
in-house R&D activities instead of on collaboration with other innovation actors. However,
starting from the end of 1990s companies have emphasized R&D collaborations with other
innovation actors, mainly universities and PRIs.

The republic of Korea has developed remarkably since the early 1960s. The country’s
success is a result of its strong capabilities in technological innovation. These capabilities
began to be developed at the end of the 1960s and have been reinforced since the 1980s.
They have been transformed into new products and services that are competitive in
international markets.

Table 2.1: Major economic indicators in the republic of Korea

The government plays in almost every aspect of South Korean society. It has increased its
efforts to enhance innovation capabilities. The role played by the government in science,
technology and innovation can be summarized in terms of decades as follows:

18
Table 2.2: Role of the republic of Korea’s government in the national innovation system

It was not until the early 1960s that national efforts for the promotion of science,
technology and innovation were initiated in line with the First Five-Year Plan for Economic
Development, introduced in 1962. Since then, the government has intervened very strongly
in the areas of science, technology and innovation. Economic policy at this time was
characterized by import substitution and export orientation. In order to carry out this
economic policy effectively, an institutional framework in the area of science and
technology was established, including:

The foundation of the Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) in 1966;
The passing of the Science and Technology Promotion Act in 1967;
The establishment of MOST in 1967, which has the task of formulating and
implementing science and technology policy.

At the same time, national universities attempted to produce as many engineers as possible.
The republic of Korea’s national innovation system concentrated on the digestion and
imitation of imported technologies from more advanced countries.

In the 1970s, the South Korean government placed the main emphasis of its industrial policy
on the establishment and expansion of heavy, chemical and export-oriented industries.

19
These industries were technology-oriented and needed a certain level of domestic
technological and innovation capability.

With the view to meeting the needs of these industries, the government founded several
corresponding government-sponsored research institutes, such as the Korea Institute if
Machinery and Materials (KIMM), Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology (KRICT)
and Electronics and Telecommunication Research Institute (ETRI). Together with KIST, these
government-sponsored research institutes represent the foundations of the national
innovation system.

During this period, the major emphasis of innovation policy shifted from the simple
imitation of imported technologies to their complex adoption and the domestic
development of simple, less complex technologies. Creative imitation started in this period.
The government implemented a series of strong policies for producing as many researchers
and engineers as possible, as these strategic industries needed them. A number of big
industrial enterprises, especially those in the industries mentioned above, began to carry
out their own R&D activities.

The 1980s are characterized by a very strong increase in industrial R&D activities within the
national innovation system. Using several policy instruments, the government motivated
industrial enterprises to establish their own R&D institutes. The number of private research
institutes rose dramatically, from 53 in 1981 to 966 in 1990. In line with this strong increase
of industrial R&D capabilities, the government tried to shift the industrial structure away
from traditional branches and towards high technology areas.

In 1982, the government initiated its first big project in the areas of science, technology and
innovation: the National R&D Programme. This programme aimed to develop not only high
technologies, but also major technologies. In this programme, the key industrial
technologies that companies could not deal with alone were developed through joint
projects, especially between companies and government- sponsored research institutes. As
a result of strong R&D efforts in the public and private sectors during this period, the
Republic of Korea was able to attain a certain level of innovation capability to compete with
more advanced countries in some high-technology areas such as semiconductors.

Since the late 1980s, several ministries, including the Ministries of Commerce, Industry and
Energy (MOCIE), the Environment, and Information and Telecommunications have become
concerned with science, technology and innovation. In 1987, MOCIE initiated the Industrial
Base Technology Development Program. This was the first time that science and technology-
related ministries had started such a programme, with the exception of MOST. Following
MOCIE, other ministries began to initiate their own programmes, thus enhancing innovation
capabilities in many industrial sectors.

20
Despite the greatly increased importance of industry, the South Korean Government
intervened more actively in the 1990s than before in the areas of science, technology, and
innovation. Based on some successes over the previous decade, it recognized the
importance of science, technology and innovation in economic development. The
government therefore tried to step up national R&D expenditure, with the result that in
1991 the share of national R&D expenditure in the GDP exceeded 2 per cent for the first
time in the country’s history.

Based on the strong increase in industrial R&D capabilities in the 1990s, companies took
over major areas of R&D activities that had previously been performed by government-
sponsored institutes. As a result, there was frequent reorganization, merging and
disorganization of PRIs during this decade. Criticism of the role of PRIs rose during this
period. In March 1999, the government therefore introduced a new public research system
modelled on Germany’s Gesellschaft system, the Research Council.

During this period, the government promoted R&D and the innovation capabilities of the
country’s universities very strongly. Indeed, this had been the weakest point of the
country’s innovation system up to this time. In order to strengthen academic R&D
capabilities, the government initiated the Excellent Research Center (ERC) programme for
the most advanced university research centres in 1990. This programme consists of
Scientific Research Centers in the area of basic science and Engineering Research Centers in
the field of engineering and applied research. When a centre in a university is accepted as
an ERC, it receives generous funding for a duration of ten years. As there was a hierarchy in
the level of research capabilities in South Korean universities, a few universities dominated
the ERCs. Moreover, most of these were based in Seoul. The government therefore initiated
the Regional Research Center Programme in 1995 in order to strengthen the R&D and
innovation capabilities of universities in other regions. As of 2001, 25 Scientific Research
Centers, 34 Engineering Research Centers and 45 Regional Research Centers were active
nationwide. These centres have played an important role in enhancing the R&D capabilities
of the country’s universities.

In the middle of the 1990s, a new policy direction rose in the national innovation policy,
with the government initiating a regional innovation policy. Indeed, the country had
developed in the middle of a capital city - Seoul - and its outskirts. The evolution of politics,
the economy, society, and culture was centred on these areas, so that the regional level of
industry, science and technology elsewhere in the country remained very low. The central
government had always been a dominant player in innovation policy and yet there was no
regional science and technology policy in the Republic of Korea. As late as 1999, the R&D
budget of all regional governments represented only 6.8 per cent of the national science
and technology budget. Research organizations were located in and around Seoul and in
Dae-Deock Science Park, about 150 km south of Seoul. More recently, however, regional
governments have recognized the importance of science and technology for the economic

21
development of their regions, especially since the inauguration of the Local Government
System in March 1995. As of 2000, eight of the 16 regional governments have established an
independent organization for promoting technological and innovation capabilities in their
regional administrations.

As it looked towards the twenty-first century, the Republic of Korea initiated a very
ambitious plan to enhance technological and innovation capabilities more systematically. In
January 2001, the government enacted a comprehensive law the Basic Law of Science and
Technology. This law aimed at a more systematic promotion of science and technology and
required a Basic Plan of Science and Technology to be formulated and implemented every
five years. This plan comprises the detailed science and technology pIans of all related
ministries. Based on the law the first Basic Plan for Science and Technology was formulated
in December 2001. It had a comprehensive goal and implementation strategies for
enhancing technological capabilities for the next five years, that is, from 2002 until 2006.
According to this plan, the Republic of Korea aimed at becoming one of the top ten
countries in the areas of science, technology and innovation. Six areas of technology were
selected as essential to the knowledge-based twenty first century: information technology,
biotechnology, nanotechnology, space technology, environmental technology and cultural
technology. As the major science and technology-related ministries promoted technological
innovation and allocated significant sums, it became evident that innovation policy would
have to be coordinated between these different government actors. The Presidential
Committee on Science and Technology was established in 1999 for this purpose. This new
committee was established to improve on the Committee of Science and Technology-
Related Ministers, chaired by MOST. As there had been strong competition in innovation
policies between ministries, and in particular concerning sector-specific ministries, it was
impossible to attain effective policy coordination under this old committee. However, much
better coordination was anticipated under the new set-up, as the chairman of the
committee was the President of the Republic of Korea.

During this period, regional innovation policies became an important priority in national
innovation policy, especially those of MOST and MOCIE. Special attention was placed on
enhancing region-specific technological capabilities that could be transformed into a
regional comparative advantage. Future-oriented policy goals, such as enhancing quality of
life in terms of science, technology and innovation, were pursued seriously for the first time.
The government therefore fully recognized the importance of science, technology and
innovation in the economic and social development of the country.

In December 2004, the government started to reform its science and technology
administration structure. The Minister of Science and Technology was promoted to Deputy
Prime Minister in order to effectively coordinate the science and technology-related
ministries. For this purpose, MOST established a Science & Technology Innovation Office to
coordinate policy among ministries. As a result, the Science and Technology Minister is

22
positioned at the highest level within the government administration compared with other
countries.

In addition, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MOE-HRD) has
initiated two important programmes for strengthening universities’ R&D and innovation
potential: the Brain Korea 21 (BK21) programme and the New University for Regional
Innovation (NURI) programme. The BK21 programme was established in 1999 with the
objective of upgrading national universities’ research infrastructure and graduate training
levels. Between 1999 and 2005, about 1,168 billion ROK won were invested in major South
Korean research-intensive universities as part of the first phase of the programme. BK21
was evaluated as successful in strengthening national universities’ R&D potential. The
second phase of the BK21 programme, which aims to raise national graduate school
standards to a global level, started in 2005 to run for seven years. The NURI programme
began in 2004 in order to help regional universities to develop their areas of specialty and
strength. About 1.4 trillion won is to be invested over five years and after few yeras 109 of
the 241 regional universities were participating in this programme. These two programmes
(BK21 and NURI) are very comprehensive and favour universities’ R&D collaboration with
other innovation actors.

During this period and based on continuous efforts to develop technological capabilities,
some South Korean companies, especially big companies in corporate groups, have become
very competitive in international markets by producing ‘frontier’ products. This is due not
only to the firms’ relatively good strategic decision-making but also to the government’s
active support of their technological innovations. Building on effective collaboration
between the public and private sectors and national companies have become very
competitive in several key industrial sectors, such as semiconductors, mobile phones and
the steel and biotechnology industries.

The legal framework for R&D activities and collaboration is instrumental in the development
of the technological capabilities of enterprises and the nation as a whole. The following list
provides an overview of the evolution of the legal framework for the country’s R&D
collaboration over the past five decades.

23
 Patent Law by KIPO (1946)
Law for the Activation of Technological Development by MOST (1972)
Law for the Promotion of Industrial Technology Research Consortia by MOST (1986)
Law for Acceleration of Collaborative R&D by MOCIE (1994)
Law for the Establishment of an Industrial Technology Infrastructure by MCIE (1995)
Law for the Acceleration of Technology Transfer by MOST (2000)
Science and Technology Basic Law by MOST (2001)
Law for the promotion of Industrial Education and Industry-Academy Collaboration
by MOE-HRD (2003)
Special Law for Balanced National Development by MOCIE (2004)

In addition, several major programmes were developed to support R&D capacity and the
collaboration between the different innovation actors, which include:

Excellent Research Center (ERC) programme (1989)

Regional Research Center (RRC) programme (1995)
Technology Innovation Center (TIC) programme (1997)
Technology Business Incubator (TBI) programme (2000)
Business Incubator (BI) programme (1993)
Technopark programme (1997)

2.5.3. Academia-Industry-Government interaction in Taiwan (Vincent Wu)

University-industry interaction in Taiwan began to be approved by the Ministry of Education

in the early 1980s. Before that time, universities were not allowed to actively cooperate
with industrial firms. The degree of interactions can be further understood by a recent
survey which is a part of the “Taiwan’s National Innovation System” study. In the early
stage, Nevertheless, there remained two formal organizations: Taiwan University’s Tjing-
Ling Industrial Research Institute (TLIRI) and Tze-Chiang Foundation of Science and
Technology (TCFST), which have been involved in university-industry cooperation since early
1970s. On the other side, the National Science Council (NSC) of Taiwan thought the lack of
good U-I interactions could be one of the reasons why Taiwan is always not able to catch up
in the emerging technology areas. Therefore, it initiated a “University-Industry Research
Cooperation” Program in 1991, and started to implement in February of 1992. Until March
of 1999, there have been more than 140 companies and 14 universities involved 95 U-I
Cooperative Research Projects. For the Program as a whole, the NSC has supported it with
60 million US$. Until January of 1998, there were 91 patents and 27 technologies from the
Program being transferred or licensed. In addition, the university incubator program is also
another development in Taiwan. It is the Department of Small & Medium-sized Enterprises
(DSME) of the Ministry of Economic Affairs that has been supporting and been helping set
up more than 50 incubators in the past 5 years. Most of them are located in university
campus.

24
Tze-Chiang Foundation of Science and Technology (TCFST)

Tze-Chiang Foundation of Science and Technology (TCFST) was founded in 1973 by alumni of
National Tsing-Hua University (NTHU). The primary goal of TCFST is to build up connections
among academic, research, industrial and governmental institutions in order to promote
economic growth, upgrade the industry, popularize human and social science as well as
speed up modernization of industrial and business management. TCFST is thus devoted to
cooperative research and professional training programs by utilizing academic expertise and
facilities as well as obtaining the support of the government. TCFST was set up as a
semiconductor-based laboratory. With the success in semiconductor technology, TCFST was
expanded into a science and technology research and training center in 1988. It owned five
laboratories, namely Semiconductor Lab., Optoelectronics Lab. Information Technology
Lab., Special Chemicals Lab. And Industrial Material Lab. In light of the severeness of
environmental problems, the Environmental Protection Laboratory was built up in 1990,
jointly with NTHU. There are two major tasks of the laboratories. First, it arranges
professional training programs for hi-tech engineers in the industry. Second, it explores into
opportunities in technical research and development. To help increase the technology level
of the industry, TCFST has developed the capability to develop and manufacture hi-tech
products such as solar cell, power MOS, Lcd display and composite materials. Since 1989,
over fifty research projects for upgrading traditional industries and over ten survey projects
have been accomplished. Many patents have been acquired. TCFST sees the needs of the
industry, integrates academic resources and seeks government support to help upgrade the
industry. In the area of professional training, TCFST has provided high quality training
programs. In 1986, TCFST was appointed by the Administration of Hsinchu Science-Based
Industrial Park to set up a training center of semiconductor technologies. Since then nearly
forty thousand engineers have been trained through prior and post-employment training
programs. Special systematic training programs were arranged upon request by large
corporations. Since 1989, TCFST has been offering other professional training courses
besides semiconductors, including optoelectronics, communication, automations,
information systems, composite materials and environmental projection issues. For years,
these courses, mostly appointed by governmental institutions such as Industrial
Development Bureau and Employment & Vocational Training Administration, have been
recognized as excellent training courses by the industry.

Incubator Programs

In January of 1995, Taiwan’s Small & Medium Enterprise Agency (SMEA) of Ministry of
Economic Affairs was assigned to launch SME Incubation Policy as one of the moves under
the macro policy of “Asia Pacific Operation Center”. Half year later, SMEA assigned Institute
of Management of Technology of National Chiao Tung University to complete the “Planning
Report for Small & Medium Enterprise Incubator Center”. After one year’s effort on it, the
first incubator center was set up by Industrial Technology Research Institute with the
assistance from SMEA in 1996. Since then, SMEA has assisted the establishment of about 50
incubators all over Taiwan.

25
3. Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology adopted for the study. The survey was targeted at
Technology Institutes. For the study four universities namely Addis Ababa, Bahir Dar, Jimma
and Mekelle Universities were selected. Questionnaire was mainly used for data collection.
All institute directors, school deans/directors, department heads, program coordinators and
specialization chair holders in the technology institutes of the four universities were
participated in the questionnaire survey. Additionally data was collected by interview with
the industry linkage officers of the four universities. The questionnaire was distributed and
collected personally by contacting respondents.

The survey was conducted in two phases. The first phase was in May 2014 and it was
conducted in Mekelle and Bahir Dar universities. The second phase was in September 2014
which was conducted in Addis Ababa and Jimma universities. The questionnaires for the two
phases had some differences because it was taken important that some points should be
added to make the questionnaire more strong and clear. The questionnaires are given in
Appendix I.

26
 4. Results of the Study
This chapter presents the results obtained from the study. The chapter provides the
research results obtained from the studied universities on the status, types, barriers and
promotional measures of interaction with the industry.

4.1. Characteristics of the sample departments

The study covered four universities as shown in Table 4.1. In total, data were collected from
20 departments in the four universities. Disciplines including Architecture, Biomedical
Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Computer
Science, Material Science and Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Industrial
Engineering were covered. All of the responses were received from Science and Engineering
based departments. The respondents were mainly heads of department and specialization
chairs in the specified departments.

Except the case of Addis Ababa University, majority of the academics in other studied
universities are lecturers at masters degree level and assistant lecturers at bachelors degree
level and they have only few numbers of staff at PHD level. As far as funding of departments
is concerned almost entirely they are funded by government funds.

Table 4.1: Characteristics of the study sample

University Number of Discipline %(Number) Position of %(Number)
departments respondent
Addis Ababa 04 Architecture 5.5 (4) Head/ Director/ 20.5 (15)
Dean
Bahirdar 04 Biomedical engineering 1.4 (1) Chair holder 79.5 (58)
Jimma 07 Chemical engineering 16.4 (12)
Mekelle 05 Civil engineering 23.3 (17)
Electrical engineering and 28.8 (21)
computer science
Material science and 2.7 (2)
engineering
Mechanical engineering 21.9 (16)
and Industrial engineering

4.2. Status of Interaction with Industry

Respondents were asked to judge the status of industry linkage in their institute in general
and in their respective units in particular. The results are given in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3
respectively.

More than half of the respondents responded that the status of industry linkage both in
their institute and in their respective units is intermediate. The response also reveals that

27
the interaction is better in more established departments like civil engineering and
mechanical engineering than others.

Table 4.2: Status of interaction with industry at institute level

Respondent Institute’s status of industry linkage
Good Intermediate Poor
Total 23 (31.5 %) 37 (50.7 %) 13 (17.8 %)
Architecture 0 (0 %) 3 (75 %) 1 (25 %)
Biomedical 0 (0 %) 1 (100 %) 0 (0 %)
engineering
Chemical engineering 1 (8.3 %) 8 (66.7 %) 3 (25 %)
Civil engineering 7 (41.2 %) 10 (58.8 %) 0 (0 %)
Electrical engineering 6 (28.6 %) 9 (42.8 %) 6 (28.6 %)
and computer science
Material science and 0 (0 %) 0 (0 %) 2 (100 %)
engineering
Mechanical 9 (56.2 %) 6 (37.5 %) 1 (6.3 %)
engineering and
Industrial engineering

Table 4.3: Status of interaction with industry at unit level

Respondent Unit’s status of industry linkage
Good Intermediate Poor
Total 16 (21.9 %) 37 (50.7 %) 20 (27.4 %)
Architecture 0 (0 %) 2 (50 %) 2 (50 %)
Biomedical 0 (0 %) 1 (100 %) 0 (0 %)
engineering
Chemical engineering 1 (8.3 %) 6 (50 %) 5 (41.7 %)
Civil engineering 7 (41.2 %) 8 (47.0 %) 2 (11.8 %)
Electrical engineering 4 (19.0 %) 9 (42.9 %) 8 (38.1 %)
and computer science
Material science and 0 (0 %) 1 (50 %) 1 (50 %)
engineering
Mechanical 4 (25 %) 10 (62.5 %) 2 (12.5 %)
engineering and
Industrial engineering

4.3. Types of Interaction with Industry

One of the aims of the survey was also identifying and ranking the types of industry linkage
works being done. Responses were collected regarding this and the results obtained are
given in Tables 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7. Questionnaires where respondents didn’t respond in
the right way were rejected.

For phase one of the survey (i.e. Mekelle university and Bahir Dar University), three types of
linkages were provided for respondents to choose. An option is also given for them to list if

28
there are other types of linkages. 90.9 % of the respondents ranked internship as the most
widely done linkage work at the institute level while consultancy and research are ranked
second with a more or less similar result. At unit level 46.9 % respondents placed internship
first while 28.1 % placed consultancy firsts and 15.6 % placed research first. This shows that
internship is the priority interaction type in this case also. Taking the remaining data, it can
be seen that consultancy is the second widely done interaction work at units level followed
by research.

Table 4.4: Types of interaction with industry at institute level (Bahir Dar and Mekelle)
Sample size = 33 (1 rejected)
Service Rank
1 2 3 Left blank
Internship 30 (90.9 %) 2 (6.1 %) 1 (3.0 %) 0 (0 %)
Consultancy 3 (9.1 %) 12 (36.4 %) 11 (33.3 %) 7 (21.2 %)
Research 0 (0.0 %) 13 (39.4 %) 16 (48.5 %) 4 (12.1 %)

Table 4.5: Types of interaction with industry at unit level (Bahir Dar and Mekelle)
Sample size = 32 (2 rejected)
Service Rank
1 2 3 Left blank
Internship 15 (46.9 %) 8 (25.0 %) 2 (6.2 %) 7 (21.9 %)
Consultancy 9 (28.1 %) 10 (31.2 %) 5 (15.6 %) 8 (25.0 %)
Research 5 (15.6 %) 5 (15.6 %) 13 (40.6 %) 9 (28.1 %)

For phase two of the survey (i.e. Addis Ababa university and Jimma University), five types of
linkages were provided as an alternative for respondents to choose. Here 73.5 %
respondents ranked internship first as a linkage work done at institute level while 57.1 %
respondents ranked internship first as a linkage work at their units level. This again shows
that internship is by far the main work done in the institutes attempt to interact with the
industry.

Next to internship, similar number of respondents ranked consultancy and research as first
and second for interaction at institute level while research and training programs are the
interaction types at the respondents’ unit level that are most ranked first and second.
According to the survey, technology development (incubation) was the least done
interaction type with about half of the respondents left it unmarked in both institute and
unit levels.

29
 Table 4.6: Types of interaction with industry at institute level (Addis Ababa and Jimma)
Sample size = 34 (5 rejected)
Service Rank
1 2 3 4 5 Left blank
Internship 25 (73.5 %) 1 (2.9 %) 3 (8.8 %) 1 (2.9 %) 1 (2.9 %) 3 (8.8 %)
Consultancy 3 (8.8 %) 9 (26.5 %) 6 (17.6 %) 3 (8.8 %) 1 (2.9 %) 12 (35.3 %)
Research 3 (8.8 %) 9 (26.5 %) 5 (14.7 %) 6 (17.6 %) 1 (2.9 %) 10 (29.4 %)
Training programs 1 (2.9 %) 7 (20.6 %) 9 (26.5 %) 4 (11.8 %) 2 (5.9 %) 11 (32.4 %)
Technology 1 (2.9 %) 1 (2.9 %) 0 (0 %) 4 (11.8 %) 12 (35.3 %) 16 (47.1 %)
development

Table 4.7: Types of interaction with industry at unit level (Addis Ababa and Jimma)
Sample size = 35 (4 rejected)
Service Rank
1 2 3 4 5 Left blank
Internship 20 (57.1 %) 1 (2.9 %) 2 (5.7 %) 4 (11.4 %) 0 (0 %) 7 (20 %)
Consultancy 3 (8.6 %) 6 (17.1 %) 6 (17.1 %) 2 (5.7 %) 2 (5.7 %) 15 (42.9 %)
Research 7 (20 %) 7 (20 %) 1 (2.9 %) 4 (11.4 %) 2 (5.7 %) 14 (40 %)
Training programs 1 (2.9 %) 10 (28.6 %) 7 (20 %) 2 (5.7 %) 1 (2.9 %) 14 (40 %)
Technology 0 (0 %) 2 (5.7 %) 2 (5.7 %) 3 (8.6 %) 8 (22.9 %) 20 (57.1 %)
development

4.4. Perception of academics on barriers to University-Industry interaction

Respondents were also asked about their perception on the barriers that prohibited good
interaction between universities and industries. The result of the survey is given in Table
4.8 and Table 4.9.
In phase one of the survey (Table 4.8), three alternatives were given for respondents and
additional option is given for them to list if there are other constraints. Almost all
respondents didn’t give other barriers and only the three alternatives are analysed here.
Based on the result, 64.7 % of the respondents feel that the industry linkage office at the
university is not communicating them properly. The 58.8 % respondents said that
industries are not responding well while only 20.6 % responded that there is lack of
motivation from the academics.

Table 4.8: Constraints to University-Industry Interactions (Bahir Dar and Mekelle)

No. Item Mekelle (17) Bahir Dar (17) Total (34)
Poor communication from the
1 7 (41.2 %) 15 (88.2 %) 22 (64.7 %)
UIL office
2 Industries not responding well 10 (58.8 %) 10 (58.8 %) 20 (58.8 %)
Lack of motivation from the
3 4 (23.5 %) 3 (17.6 %) 7 (20.6 %)
academics

30
In phase two of the survey, respondents were asked to evaluate 16 different barriers on a
five point Liker scale ranging from very great extent to not at all (Table 4.9).

The dominant responses are; inadequate laboratory facilities, inadequate infrastructure

(communication, transport, journals, books) and time constraint due to heavy teaching
and administrative work. Lack of adequate laboratory facilities is seen as the major
constraint on the development of University-industry interactions. As the selected
universities are well established universities in the country, one can judge how this
problem will be serious in other newly established universities based on the result here.
The same can be said about infrastructure. If infrastructure is major problem in these
universities, it will be relatively easier to conclude that it will be a problem also in the
newly established universities in the country. Time constraint is also pointed out as a
major problem. As is obtained from the interview results also, industry interaction is not
seriously taken as one of the missions of the universities. It is a work given additionally
for staff members with a very busy teaching schedule. This is even shown in the industry
linkage officers themselves, as they are taking the whole load of interaction works almost
single handed in addition to their teaching responsibilities.

31
 Table 4.9: Constraints to University-Industry Interactions (Addis Ababa and Jimma)
No. Item Mean score
Addis Ababa Jimma Total (38)
(13) (25)
1 Inadequate laboratory facilities 1.7 2.4 2.2
2 Inadequate infrastructure(communication, 2.1 2.4
transport, journals, books) 2.3
3 Time constraint due to heavy teaching and 2.2 2.4
administrative work 2.3
4 Lack of autonomy to work with industry 2.5 2.5 2.5
5 Academics are not aware of the possible 2.0 2.8
channels for getting sponsored research
and consultancy assignments 2.5
6 University norms and procedures hamper 2.6 3.2
collaboration with industry 3.0
7 Lack of motivation and entrepreneurial 2.8 3.1
spirit among faculty 3.0
8 Industry is not interested to collaborate 3.2 3.0
with universities 3.1
9 The university structure is not adapted to 2.5 3.4
the needs of industrial collaborations 3.1
10 Geographical location of the university 4.6 2.5
results in less access to the industry 3.2
11 Collaboration with industry limits the free 3.9 3.3
choice of research topics 3.5
12 Academics don’t feel confident enough to 3.8 3.8
undertake industry oriented research 3.8
13 The university has no policy towards 3.9 3.7
collaborations with industry 3.8
14 Our research capabilities are not relevant 4.2 3.9
to the industry 4.0
15 Collaboration with industry has a negative 4.6 4.2
influence on the pedagogic mission of a
university 4.3
16 It is not the mission of the academic 4.8 4.4
researcher to collaborate with industry 4.6

4.5. Perception of academics on promotional measures to University-Industry

interaction

It is important to identify the effectiveness of measures to improve university-industry

interactions as per the perception of academics. This was also included in the
questionnaire and result is given in Table 4.10 and Table 4.11.
In phase one of the surveys, the question was left open for the respondents where they
are asked to list appropriate measures that they think should be taken. The respondents’
comments were compiled, grouped and presented in Table 4.10. The result shows that

32
 the main measures that should be taken to promote industry linkage are establishing
strong and decentralized industry linkage office, increasing industries willingness to
collaborate with universities and good communication between university units as well as
with industry.

Table 4.10: Perception of Academics on Promotional Measures (Bahir Dar and Mekelle)
No. Item Mekelle (17) Bahir Dar (17) Total (34)
There should be a strong and
1 4 (23.5 %) 5 (29.4 %) 9 (26.5 %)
decentralized industry linkage office
Industries should be willing and have a
2 4 (23.5 %) 4 (23.5 %) 8 (23.5 %)
plan to work with universities
Establishing better communication
3 within the university and with 2 (11.8 %) 6 (35.3 %) 8 (23.5 %)
industries
Organizing workshops in the presence
4 2 (11.8 %) 2 (11.8 %) 4 (11.8 %)
of all stakeholders
Awareness creation for industries to
5
work with universities 3 (17.6 %) 0 (0 %) 3 (8.8 %)
The academics should be motivated for
6
the work 2 (11.8 %) 0 (0 %) 2 (5.9 %)
The university should select strategic
7
areas to collaborate with industries 2 (11.8 %) 0 (0 %) 2 (5.9 %)
The university should focus on problem
8 1 (5.9 %) 0 (0 %) 1 (2.9 %)
solving researches
Industries should be staffed with skilled
9
personnel 1 (5.9 %) 0 (0 %) 1 (2.9 %)

Table 4.11 presents the perception of university academics on promotional measures on a

four point Likert scale ranging from not at all effective to very effective, which was
conducted in phase two of the survey.

The main effective steps to promote interaction as perceived by academics are

improvement of laboratory facilities, conducting of seminars, workshops for staff from
industry, encouragement of industrial visits by academics and setting up of strong
university-industry linkage units in universities.

33
 Table 4.11: Perception of Academics on Promotional Measures (Addis Ababa and Jimma)
No. Item Mean score
Addis Ababa Jimma Total (38)
(13) (25)
1 Improve laboratory facilities 3.8 3.7 3.7
2 Conduct seminars, workshops for staff from 3.7 3.5
industry 3.6
3 Encourage regular industrial visits by staff 3.6 3.4 3.5
4 Setup strong U-I linkage units in universities 3.7 3.4 3.5
5 Publicize university activities relevant to 3.4 3.4
industry 3.4
6 Involve staff from industry in teaching 3.1 3.4
programmes 3.3
7 Give more autonomy for academics to work 3.4 3.1
with industry 3.2
8 Provide consultancy/collaboration based 2.8 3.4
promotions for academic staff 3.2
9 Tax concessions for companies collaborating 3.0 2.8
with universities 2.8
10 Make it obligatory for academics to undertake 2.6 2.9
a certain amount of work with industry 2.8

34
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
This study aims at assessing the current status of industries in Ethiopian universities,
identifying the problems preventing good interaction and proposing ways for promoting
industry linkage.

The conclusions made from this study are the following:

1. Ethiopian universities have carried three responsibilities; teaching, research and

community service. In addition to teaching, universities are expected to do most of
the work done by research institutes in other countries as there are only limited
numbers of research institutes in the country.
2. University-industry linkage is at a growing stage in Ethiopian universities while it has
long distance to go forward, as can be seen from international experience.
3. Internship is the main work universities are interacting with industries. Consultancy
services, research and trainings are the other forms of interaction between
universities and industries, where civil engineering and mechanical engineering
departments are the main actors in this area.
4. Lack of laboratory facilities, inadequate infrastructures (like communication,
transport, journals, books, etc), time constraint due to heavy teaching load and lack
of strong industry linkage offices are identified as the main barriers for collaboration
with industries.
5. Improving laboratory facilities, conducting workshops for industry staff, encouraging
regular industry visits by academics and setting up strong and decentralized industry
linkage offices are identified by the academics as the main measures to promote
collaboration with industries.
6. Coordination and management of interactions at universities, except internship, are
mostly done by the individual researchers or the dean of the faculty or the head of
the department. The newly established interaction units are yet to play a significant
role in managing interactions.

The recommendations of this research are based on the results of the survey and the
assessed international experiences. They are presented in three categories;
recommendations regarding universities, industries and the government.

Recommendations regarding universities:

1. The industry linkage offices should be reorganized in a strong manner with more power
and personnel. The offices should have the power and capacity to control and
coordinate all interaction works. Also, officers should be relieved from other
responsibilities like teaching.
2. Universities should give more attention and more budget to establish fully equipped
and both teaching and research oriented laboratories.

35
3. As time constraint is mentioned as a major barrier, staff members with a research
capability should be relieved from heavy teaching loads. More importantly, universities
should enforce the recruitment of research staff.
4. In the absence of large number of research institutes, universities of Ethiopia are
expected to cover the works of PRIs. So, universities should develop a stronger and
industry based research capabilities.
5. Universities should perceive industry linkage in a wider way. As is observed in the study,
universities are focusing mainly on internship and staff and department initiated
consultancy works. Universities should engage in more advanced works like joint
research with industries, development of spin off companies and university owned
enterprises, patent licencing and establishment of science parks.
6. Universities other than Addis Ababa University has rated geographical barrier as a major
problem for interaction. In addition, it is known that there are only few large firms in
the country. So, this study recommends universities to focus on supporting micro and
small enterprises.
7. Universities should take the motive to organize regular seminars and workshops with
industries and other relevant stakeholders. In addition, there should be an industry
representative in the universities’ senate meeting.
8. Universities should allocate more budget for R&D works.

Recommendations regarding industries:

1. Large and medium industries should build their internal R&D capacity so that they
will keep growing and be competitive.
2. Industries should understand the importance of university linkage and should be
willing to collaborate. This can be expressed by accepting and engaging intern
students as they are their future employers, increasing trust on the capacity of
university academics, providing their problems and their future plans of
development for universities and trying to achieve them jointly with universities and
other ways.
3. Industries should be major funding sources for university research. This can be in the
form of contract researches, patent licencing and others.

Recommendations regarding the government:

1. Recent models of Academia-Industry-Government linkage depict that the

government’s role in establishing strong academia-industry linkage is not merely
facilitation, but to have a strong hand in the process.
2. The government is responsible in shaping the national innovation system of the
country. For this, the government is expected to continuously lead the collaboration
works through the development of policies and guidelines.
3. The government, as the current major source of funding for R&D works, should
allocate more budget for R&D works in universities.

36
4. There should be more PRIs in selected fields, which contain competent researchers
and full laboratory facilities.
5. Different funding programmes and interface organizations should be established to
initiate and facilitate R&D works. and to fill the observed gaps like establishment of
research laboratories.

37
References
BARNES, T; PASHBY, I; Gibbons, A. 2002. “Effective University –Industry Interaction: A Multi-
case Evaluation of Collaborative R&D Projects”. European Management Journal Vol. 20(3),
pp. 272–285.
BASANT, R; CHANDRA P. 2007. “Role of Educational and R&D Institutions in City Clusters: An
Exploratory Study of Bangalore and Pune Regions in India”. World Development Vol. 35 (6),
pp. 1037–1055.
CHUNG, S. “Academia-Industry-Government interaction in the republic of Korea”
CYERT, R. M; Goodman, P. S. 1997. “Creating Effective University-Industry Alliances: An
Organizational Learning Perspective.” Organizational Dynamics, pp. 45-57.
DECTER, M; BENNETT, M; Leseure, M. 2007. “University to business technology transfer—UK
and USA comparisons.” Technovation 27, pp.145–155.
DIERDONCK, R.V; DEBACKERE, K; Engelen, B. 1990. “University-industry relationships: How
does the Belgian academic community feel about it?” Research Policy 19, pp. 551-566.
ESHAM, M. 2008. “Strategies to Develop University-Industry Linkages in Sri Lanka”. National
Education Commission, Sri Lanka
ETZKOWITZ, H; LEYDESDORFF, L. 1996. “Emergence of a Triple Helix of university—
industry—government relations”. In: Science and Public Policy, 23, 279—286.
ETZKOWITZ, H; LEYDESDORFF, L. 1997. “Universities and the global knowledge economy. A
Triple Helix of university—industry—government relations”. London: Pinter Publishers.
ETZKOWITZ, H; LEYDESDORFF, L. 2000. “The dynamics of innovation: from national systems
and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university—industry—government relations”. In: Research
Policy, 29, 109—123.
FOURIE, M. 2003. “Beyond the ivory tower: service-learning for sustainable community
development” in South African Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 17 (1), 31-38.
FREEMAN, C. 1987. “Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan”.
London and New York: Pinter Publishers.
GIBBONS, M. 1998. “Higher education in the twenty-first century”. Washington. DC: World
Bank.
GORANSSON, B; BRUNDENIUS, C. 2011. “Universities in Transition: The Changing Role and
Challenges for Academic Institutions”. New York: Springer.
GULBRANDSEN, M; SMEBY, J. 2005. “Industry Funding and University Professors’ Research
Performance” in Research Policy, Vol. 34 (6), 932–950.
HALL, B; LINK, A; SCOTT, J. 2000. “Universities as Research Partners”. Cambridge MA,
National Bureau of Economic Research, Working paper 7643, April.

38
HERNES, G; MARTIN, M. 2001. “Management of university industry linkages.” Results from
the Policy Forum held at the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). Policy
Forum, International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) / UNESCO, Paris 1-2 June 2000.
KRUSS, G. 2008. “Balancing old and new organisational forms: changing dynamics of
government, industry, and university interaction in South Africa” in Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, Vol. 20 (6), 667–682.
LÖFSTEN, H; LINDELÖF, P. 2002. “Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based
firms-academic-industry links, innovation and markets”. Research Policy 31, pp. 859–876.
MARTIN, M. 2000. “Managing university-industry relations: A study of institutional practices
from 12 different countries. A Working document in the series ‘Improving the managerial
effectiveness of higher education institutions’”. Paris: International Institute for Educational
Planning/UNESCO.
MARTIN, M. 2011. “In search of the Triple Helix: Academia—industry—government
interaction in China, Poland and the Republic of Korea”
MONCK, C.S.P; PORTER, R.B; Quintas, P; Storey, D; Wynarczyk, P. 1988. “Science Parks and
The Growth of High-Technology Firms”. Croom Helm, London.
MOSES, M. 1985. “Research and Development Linkages to Production in Developing
Countries”. Westview Press, Boulder, Company.
PAUW, K; OOSTHUIZEN, M; VAN DER WESTHUIZEN, C. 2008. “Graduate Unemployment in
the Face of Skills Shortages: A Labour Market Paradox.” South African Journal of Economics,
76: 45–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1813-6982.2008.00152.x
PEREZ, P; SANCHEZ, M. 2003. “The development of university spin-offs: early dynamics of
technology transfer and networking”. Technovation 23, pp. 823–831.
SABATO, J; BOTANA, N. 1968. “La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo futuro de América
Latina” [Science and technology in the future development of Latin America]”. In: Revista de
Integración. 3, 125.
SANCHEZ, A. M; TEJEDOR, A. P. 1995. “University-industry relationships in peripheral
regions: the case of Aragon in Spain”. Technovation, 15(10), pp. 613-625.
SIEGEL, D. S; Waldman, D. A; Atwater, L. E; Link, A. N. 2003. “Commercial knowledge
transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry
collaboration”. Journal of High Technology Management Research 14, pp. 111–133.
SSEBUWUFU, J. 2012. “Strengthening University-Industry Linkages in Africa: A Study on
Institutional Capacities and Gaps”
STOREY, D.J; TETHER, B. S. 1998. “Public policy measures to support new technology-based
firms in the European Union”. Research Policy 26, pp. 1037–1057.
VEUGELERS, R; CASSIMAN, B. 2005. “R&D cooperation between firms and universities: Some
empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing”. International Journal of Industrial
Organization 23, pp. 355– 379.

39
Wu, V. “University-Industry Linkage -The Case of Taiwan”. National Cheng Chi University,
Taiwan

XUE L; ZHOU L. “Academia-Industry-Government interaction in China”

40
 Appendix I
Questionnaires
Questionnaire for Mekelle and Bahir Dar Universities

41
University-Industry Linkage
Code: .

This questionnaire is designed to assess the status of university-industry linkage works in

some selected universities of Ethiopia. Please answer the questions truthfully. We provide
our sincere thanks for your cooperation.
1. What do you think is the status of university-industry linkage in your
university/institute? [Check one box]
Good Intermediate Poor
2. What do you think is the status of university-industry linkage in your chair? [Check
one box]
Good Intermediate Poor
3. What is/are the main focus/es of university-industry linkage in your
university/institute? [Check one or more boxes]
Internship Consultancy Research
Specify if any other .
Please rank them:
1. 2. 3. 4.
4. What is/are the main focus/es of university-industry linkage in your chair? [Check one
or more boxes]
Internship Consultancy Research
Specify if any other .
Please rank them:
1. 2. 3. 4.
5. What are the reasons which prohibited good linkage with industries in your chair?
[Check one or more boxes]
Poor communication from the university-industry linkage office in the
university/institute
Industries not responding well
Lack of motivation from the chair
Specify if any other .
6. What are your recommendations for rectifying those problems and establishing
better linkage with industries?
___________________________________________________________________________
7. What are the main works done in your chair, up to this time, for the industries?
___________________________________________________________________________
8. What are the main benefits your university/institute/chair, up to this time, has got
from industries?
___________________________________________________________________________
9. What are your future plans, as a chair, regarding industry linkage works?
___________________________________________________________________________

42
 Questionnaire for Addis Ababa and Jimma Universities
University Industry Linkage
Code: .
This questionnaire is designed to assess the status of industry linkage works in some
selected universities of Ethiopia. Please answer the questions truthfully. We need to thank
you in advance for your cooperation.
1. What do you think is the status of industry linkage works in your institute? [Check one
box]
Good Intermediate Poor
2. What are the main focuses of industry linkage works in your institute? [Put 1,2,3 …
based on rank]
Internship Training programs
Consultancy Research and development
Technology/business incubation
Specify if any other .
3. What do you think is the status of industry linkage works in your chair? [Check one box]
Good Intermediate Poor
4. What are the main focuses of industry linkage works in your chair? [Put 1,2,3 … based on
rank]
Internship Training programs
Consultancy Research and development
Technology/business incubation
Specify if any other .
5. Please indicate to what extent the following factors prevent your chair from interacting
with the industry.
[1-Very great extent 2- Great Extent 3- Somewhat 4- Very Little 5- Not at All]

No Factors 1 2 3 4 5
1 Our research capabilities are not relevant to the industry
2 Academics don’t feel confident enough to undertake industry
oriented research
3 Lack of motivation and entrepreneurial spirit among faculty
4 Time constraint due to heavy teaching and administrative work
5 It is not the mission of the academic researcher to collaborate with
industry
6 Academics are not aware of the possible channels for getting
sponsored research and consultancy assignments
7 Collaboration with industry has a negative influence on the
pedagogic mission of a university
8 Industry is not interested to collaborate with universities
9 Collaboration with industry limits the free choice of research topics
10 Inadequate infrastructure(communication, transport, journals,
books)

43
11 Inadequate laboratory facilities
12 Lack of autonomy to work with industry
13 The university structure is not adapted to the needs of industrial
collaborations
14 University norms and procedures hamper collaboration with
industry
15 The university has no policy towards collaborations with industry
16 Geographical location of the university results in less access to the
industry
17 Others, please specify
18 Others, please specify

6. Please indicate the effectiveness of following measures for improving interaction

between university and industry.
[1-not at all effective 2-slightly effective 3- effective 4- very effective]

No Factors 1 2 3 4
1 Encourage regular industrial visits by staff
2 Improve laboratory facilities
3 Involve staff from industry in teaching programmes
4 Setup strong U-I linkage units in universities
5 Publicize university activities relevant to industry
6 Conduct seminars, workshops for staff from industry
7 Tax concessions for companies collaborating with universities
8 Make it obligatory for academics to undertake a certain amount of
work with industry
9 Provide consultancy/collaboration based promotions for academic
staff
10 Give more autonomy for academics to work with industry
11 Others, please specify
12 Others, please specify
13 Others, please specify

7. What are the main works (specific works) done in your chair, up to this time, for the
industries?
___________________________________________________________________________
8. What are the main benefits your chair has got, up to this time, from industries?
___________________________________________________________________________
9. What are your future plans, as a chair leader, regarding industry linkage works?
___________________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for taking part in this survey

44