Cooperation Between University and Industry

This subject, the cooperation –or lack of cooperation- between academic word and industry has been extensively discussed in the last 20-25 years. Technology Development Foundation of Turkey (TTGV) was established in 1991, Research and Development Support Decree was issued in 1995. Based on this strategy a number of support formats have been developed by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK), Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology, Ministry of Development, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Organization (KOSGEB) and various regional Development Agencies. Universities have started to establish Techno Parks (Law No: 4691, July 2001). R&D Support Law provided tax incentives for R&D Centers (Law No: 5746, Feb. 2008). Universities organized Technology Transfer Offices (TÜBİTAK support started in 2013). Even when I write these lines, a new revision of R&D Policy is on the agenda of Turkish National Assembly. But in spite of all these efforts, we must admit that we have still not reached to a level which satisfies neither industry nor academia. 

Basic reasons, I believe, are limited visions of industrial and technological structures. If a company isn’t committed to introduce any innovation/new design or if a university isn’t organized to collaborate with industry, nobody should expect any university-industry cooperation. This issue is very complicated and beyond this modest article. On the other hand I also believe that especially defense industry have some good examples and potential in this field and we can elaborate on this subject.

First of all industry and academia should anticipate that they live in two different worlds. This “different word” issue complicates the cooperation, but also makes it inevitable. The industry is organized in companies; operate in a highly competitive environment and issues like marketing time and cost of a product are consequential. On the other hand an academician in a university has very different priorities and incentives for promotion. For an academician publishing a paper in a creditable journal or attending a prestigious conference is much more important than punctual delivery of a prototype to the industrial partner. Hence parties must be extremely cautious in preparing schedules for their cooperation.

Another important point is about the clear understanding of the scope and definition of responsibilities of partners. For an academician a project can be considered “complete” when major technical issues are solved and a prototype –intestines out of the case- lies on the bench of her/his laboratory. It is almost certain that if a University tries to “design and produce” a “product” the result will be a disappointment. I say “almost certain” because I am aware of exceptions. For example we can remember pioneering electronic computer ENIAC which is designed and produced in University of Pennsylvania back in 1946. We must realize that such cases really exceptional and developed in very special conditions. Assigning an “advisor” from university to a company will not be sufficient for a real industry-university cooperation project.   On the other hand reading a news item about a university or research organization “attempting to develop an automobile or airplane project without industrial partner(s)” is astonishing.

Unless parties visualize the “different word” concept, they can’t develop well-defined bilateral responsibilities and agree on a realistic schedule. Hence the project will be a failure. Much worse than individual failure of a project, it will be generalized and lead to losing confidence in the other party. I believe that well-known expressions like “these academicians are in the ivory tower” or “the only goal of a company is profit” originate from such failures.

If the project is an erratic issue for parties the disappointment is almost unavoidable. Here comes the importance of vision statements. The industrial partner must be ready to allocate people and invest; university and related department of the university must see the field as one of the priority areas. Cooperation between Aselsan and METU Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department in the field of electronic warfare and radar systems is a good example. Starting from 1980’s Aselsan modified its company organization, employed experts, built a large building, procured equipment and machinery, established laboratories, etc. EE Department of METU, on the other hand, increased their expertise, invested in laboratories and nurtured young academicians. The result is a number of successful projects and products.

University must cooperate with an organized and comprehensive approach. We observe that in many cases the cooperation is restricted to an “agreement” between a company and an advisor from university. Although there are some successful examples, individual relations are far from reflecting the full potential of a university. We observe that products are becoming more and more complex and they embody very different fields (electronics, computer hardware and software, industrial design, mechanics, marketing). A university with many departments and experts in various fields should provide this extensive support. More than 45 universities in Turkey have established technology transfer offices or centers and they must function as the square one for of wide-ranging university-industry cooperation. 

As described by the term “Triple Helix”, in most of the successful examples we note the presence of a third party. Industry-University-Government are usually the main parties of the helix. We all know that defense industry has various good examples in this respect. Here we must emphasize that the role of the “government” is not only to provide financial support; but also to function as a real “sponsor” in all aspects of the project. We in Turkey are fortunate to have Ministry of Defense (MoD), Undersecreteriat of Defense Industry (SSM) organized for this function.

We can state some successful cases at which the third party is not the national government but a well-empowered local authority. For example Aachen region was traditionally coal-mining area of Germany. In parallel to exhaustion of coal, the region developed to an advance technology area with the cooperation among Aachen University, industry and local authority.  In Turkey regional Development Agencies (Law no: 5449, January 2006) are candidates for this function. But unfortunately we have not witnessed any major university-industry cooperation program.

Finally I would like to mention the transformation of relation between academic researches to technological applications, from linear to non-linear. As shown in the figure, during the last decades we observed that increasing impacts in academic word and industry resulted a non-linear uptrend in products of advanced technology. I want to give a very “visible” example. If we remember mobile phones 20-25 years ago, all had visible antennas extending out of the device. Basic theoretical concepts of communication theory are the same; but due to increase in communication frequency, developments in mobile network schemes and new antenna designs, today mobile telephones don’t have such extending antennas. Internal impacts are not limited to R&D. In many highly competitive areas we also observe interesting impacts and collaboration among companies. As we all know, Apple and Samsung are two major competitors in mobile telephones; but Apple procures most of the semiconductor components from Samsung. I know that “classified information” concept complicates the issue and such multiple impacts are more difficult in the field of defense R&D and industry. If defense research and technology wants to be in the front line of advanced technology, methods and systems must be developed to overcome this difficulty.