How GTE Laboratories Evaluates Its University Collaborations

There is a widely held belief that industry/university collaborations hold the key to regaining America's technical preeminence in the world, and that a closer collaboration between U.S. firms and universities will result in American companies regaining substantial high-technology market share(1,2). Although this thesis is much advocated in business, academic and political circles, and in the media, its actual validity remains an article of faith, with insufficient conclusive evidence to clearly affirm it(3). Most university/industry collaborations accomplish their scientific objectives yet they rarely produce the global breakthroughs expected of them by politicians, managers and funding agencies. The unrealistic expectations and the ensuing disappointments play into the hands of the detractors of collaboration(4). The published literature is not very helpful in providing solid, objective evidence in support of the utility of industry/university collaborations. Although most of the information about collaborations is supportive and positive, it is also anecdotal and not based on systematic evaluation (3,5,6,7,8). The various policies promoting industry/university collaborations have resulted in some shift in faculty interest from basic toward applied research projects, and from individual investigation toward participation in such group research activities as centers and consortia. Industry no longer looks upon universities as sources of basic knowledge only, but actively seeks to transfer university-developed technology into the companies' laboratories and even factories. These shifts have been observed with some alarm by many in academia; there has been concern over the loss of support for individual investigators and over the abandonment of long-term basic research in favor of results-oriented, short-term, applied research and technology transfer. To some, the present funding emphasis is realistic and responsive to the national agenda, while to others it signals the destruction of our academic values and of high quality scholarship. The National Science Foundation's response to these fears has been to point out that only a small portion of the budget is used to support group research and that most of the funds are awarded to individual investigators in the traditional manner(9). While the academic debate is taking place in the national spotlight, there is a less publicized but equally intense exchange of views in corporate conference rooms over the value firms obtain from support of academic research. There is concern about the cultural differences between the world of academe and of industry. Industry is often frustrated by the slow pace and unfocused nature of academic research, and there is a reluctance to share patent rights with universities. The potential benefits and risks of collaboration for higher education and for industry have been summarized by Matthews and Norgaard(10). Despite misgivings, industrial support for industry/university collaborations is impressive and gaining momentum, indicating the existence of at least a certain degree of utility and advantages for the sponsors. Support rose from $84 million in 1973 to $194 million in 1979 and to close to a billion dollars in 1989(11). In order to assure the continuation of this trend, reliable evaluation procedures need to be developed both on the policy and operational level. Accurate assessment and realistic feedback thus obtained will improve and further industry/university interactions. EVALUATING INDUSTRY/UNIVERSITY INTERACTIONS The Business--Higher Education Forum has focused on the importance of evaluating industry/university collaborations. In a publication appropriately titled Beyond the Rhetoric--Evaluating University-Industry Cooperation in Research and Technology Exchange, it was clearly stated that Universities and corporations need to assess the results of their collaborative research and technology exchange efforts more systematically and effectively(12). …