University-Industry Collaboration

Introduction

Three young research assistants are signing employment contracts to work permanently at a newly opened high-technology laboratory at their affiliated university. After the human resources officer points out the signature lines in the contract texts, he warns the fledgling scientists: "Gentlemen, I should mention that any patents, copyrights and intellectual property rights produced as a result of research conducted in the university's laboratories are jointly owned by the university to the extent of 50%." The young researchers are displeased. One of them objects: "But after we conduct all the research and work, why is the university taking half of our work? That's outright theft!" The HR officer's answer is quite simple, actually: "Gentlemen, the university is not handing over this laboratory to you—built with hundreds of millions of dollars in investment—for you to play 'scientist.' New discoveries are being made every moment around the world through scientific and industrial work. Your university educated you, paid your salary as laboratory assistants, and supported you as your theoretical command of science and technology improved. Now we expect you to repay all this investment. If you ask me, we're even being generous by giving you the other 50%." After this remark, laughter effects kick in, and the audience feels somewhat sympathetic to the young researchers' situation, though the HR specialist is right—academia simply wants a return on its investment in human capital. [1] This scene, taken from an American comedy series, appears so "ordinary" to viewers, particularly American ones, that... Science and technology must go hand in hand... Academia and industry must work side by side. They are not separate disciplines at all; rather, they are two halves of the same apple, but both are halves of the same apple... In our country, particularly beginning in the 1990s and continuing to the present, "Innovation" and "University-Industry Cooperation" have been at the forefront of topics whose importance is constantly emphasized in work themed around "Industrial Development." On the other hand, after this approximately 30-year period, it is evident that consensus has not been reached, either in academic circles or in industry, on what these concepts actually mean. The need for these topics has not diminished, and work in this area has increased regularly. However, over 30 years, no success that we could consider a "turning point" has yet been achieved. I first encountered the University-Industry Cooperation issue in the mid-2000s, during my effort to advance my journalism career, while working on international commodity exchanges. During those days, in examining far eastern exchanges and far eastern economies, particularly emerging Far East economies like South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore, when I experienced the similarities and differences between these nations, commentaries were being made that despite Hong Kong and Singapore's commercial success being ahead of South Korea and Taiwan, from the 2010s onward these countries would fall behind due to insufficient technology investments. The current situation has partially vindicated these predictions. [2] [caption id="" align="aligncenter"] Figure 1. Distribution by year of advanced technology products' share in South Korea's exports[/caption]   The difference between South Korea and Taiwan from similar economies lay in creating organized industrial zones structured as high-technology clusters. Thus they differentiated themselves from competing countries through their specialization in fields such as semiconductors, consumer electronics, and software development for end users. All Far Eastern countries were sustaining their economies by exporting technological products and electronic goods in some form. However, the leading countries ultimately sell "software" and "daily-use solutions" as a service, viewing their devices as mere vehicles for these services. In short, South Korea and Taiwan took strategic innovative steps within the framework of academy-industry cooperation, rapidly reviving economies that were not initially in good condition. Moreover, the same example was being tried in Europe and was succeeding. Countries like Northern Ireland, Estonia, and Iceland were making similar technological and innovative investments, transforming organized industrial organizations built on manufacturing themes into "technology clusters," and attempting development with a similar strategy. Looking at recently released figures, among Europe's countries spending the most resources on technology, these countries—at 1/10th the size—have risen to levels to compete with the giant economies of EU and G8 member countries.

Research on Cooperation

Our country, seeking a way out to increase its industrial capacity, views "Academy-Industry Cooperation" as a favored solution. The success of these countries fuels our desire to try a similar adventure. To determine the strategy to be followed along this path, observing large economies such as the USA, Germany, and Japan where academia and industry have worked hand in hand, and researching second-generation innovation economies that have caught the same trend would be a good starting point. For this purpose, I decided to review the literature of these countries using my foreign language knowledge in English and German, which would allow me to follow academic publications. However, I encountered an unexpected surprise. Because despite the USA and Germany having immeasurable wealth in scientific and industrial literature as well as in their economies, they lacked organized literature in the field of "Academy-Industry Partnership." Readers should not misunderstand; these countries had not failed to publish their work in this area. The situation I noticed was this: For these countries, cooperation between academia and industry was such an internalized phenomenon that, particularly, the need to conduct research was not felt at all! Because from the beginning, academia and industry had always worked in cooperation in these countries. They experienced almost no problems in this area. Because there were no problems, the need to conduct research was minimal. The existing research was not about "How do we establish cooperation" but rather addressed the argument "How can we ensure that existing cooperation increases not only our economy but also our social unity and solidarity." [caption id="attachment_103669" align="aligncenter"] Figure 2. Comparison of countries spending the most resources on innovation with Turkey[/caption]   To summarize briefly, for countries that best maintain academia-industry partnerships, this was such an ordinary situation that it appeared in television comedies only as background in a simple 4-5 second scene. For everyone, even for the average American watching television to have a pleasant time, this situation contained no "extraordinariness." The effects of innovation are recognized in the general population that innovation and R&D play a key role for 21st-century economies. The argument that investments in technology, new generation products, and production technologies will provide long-term returns that contribute to the economy is accepted by broad segments of the population. However, the fundamental difference between the highest financial resources allocated to innovation and R&D in economies and developing countries like ours lies in expectations regarding the source of investments. The economic model and society's understanding of economic management can be considered determining factors behind this. Ultimately, we can examine economic models in two main groups. The first, the liberal model, accepts that all economic actors are free in their fields of activity, and the coordination that provides order between them and benefits to society lies in their interaction with each other. At the other end of the spectrum stands the statist model, which argues that the state and public sector are not merely guide but the main determinant of all economic activities, and all other actors must contribute to welfare in accordance with this determination. The dominant approach in our country is the statist approach. While many historical reasons can be claimed to justify this attitude, this discussion far exceeds the limits of this article. On the other hand, if we closely observe proven methods regarding R&D expenditure believed to lift our country's economy out of the "Middle Income Trap," it will become clear that the statist approach has not produced sufficient results in this area. [caption id="" align="aligncenter"] Figure 3. Total R&D activities in Turkey and private sector share[/caption]   A simple comparison will show that for all the most successful economies in innovation, the primary actor providing financing for work in this area is always the private sector with a 70-80% share. Academia's share in R&D expenditure is below 7%. In fact, in South Korea, one of the most successful second-generation innovation economies, it is at the 1% level. Our country's situation is exactly the opposite. While the private sector's share in innovative work carried out in Turkey falls below 50%, academia, already with limited resources, attempts to cover 25% of this cost on its own. In brief, Turkey's economy, which already has more financial resources than the countries we intend to compete with, has placed the burden of breaking this vicious cycle on universities. It should be emphasized that the source of this attitude should not be seen solely as "the outdating of the current economic model." Just as Turkey is seeking a way out for university-industry cooperation, Bahrain's Ali El-Sufi, an academic assigned to work on studies in this area, sees this distinction in the substantive difference between industry and academia. According to Sufi, industry and academia are two distinct entities in both their inputs and outputs. Therefore, although from an outside perspective they appear to benefit from similar human capital (graduate engineers and technicians, professionals who have conducted master's or doctoral research, and well-educated white-collar workers with multicultural and multidisciplinary backgrounds accustomed to an international working environment), the places where they actually use this human capital are different. [3] According to Sufi's work, industry is a product-oriented production system whose priority is "making sales" and whose primary concern is the cost pressure resulting from intense competition, while academia is mostly an educational organization with very little concern for costs, whose priority is opening new research areas, and where earning income has no place on the agenda. Therefore, especially in developing countries, it would be unfair to expect the private sector, while struggling to survive in completely different lanes of competition, to also allocate resources to the innovation field whose returns may take a very long time or may never materialize. That is, it would be unfair to place blame on either party for university-industry cooperation not being accomplished. Innovation is a complete impasse for both sides. When it comes to innovation, academia and industry behave like shy lovers waiting for the other side to make the first move. Unless this shyness is overcome, establishing a happy union is not possible.

Innovation in Europe and Turkey Comparison

It is obvious that for a country's economy to grow, routine economic activities must increase regularly each year. Growth does not mean periodic increases in the performance of certain areas and sectors, but sustainable increases in the total of economic activities. To achieve this, both investments and exports must increase. Turkey's first priority in sustainable growth, especially from the 2000s onward, has been increasing foreign investment. The strategic theory on this matter is not unfounded. According to research, countries that joined the EU in the 2000s or were in the process of joining attracted more foreign investment than the union's founding members. [4 and 5] The European Commission has classified countries according to resources allocated to innovation and R&D into 4 categories. Turkey's placement in this ranking at the third level initially appears negative. On the other hand, when individual indicators are examined, it will be seen that with very little improvement, the country could transition to an economic model fed by innovation. [6] For example, the share of the manufacturing sector in Turkey's employment is above the EU average. On the other hand, while high-technology manufacturing accounts for 35% of total manufacturing in Europe, it remains at 18% in our country. Therefore, achieving a shift toward technology-focused products in the manufacturing sector would increase the value added generated by the manufacturing sector that we still use more intensively compared to our EU competitors. Another area stands out as SMEs' participation in R&D. SMEs' R&D performance over the last 10 years has consistently remained above the EU average. In particular, 2018 data indicate that SME investments in our country have reached twice the EU average level. This is partly due to newly EU-joining countries having relatively smaller economies, as well as the fact that the budget share allocated to R&D investments and support for innovative products in our country is at the same level as the EU average. Two negative points emerge from this comparison: one is the total value of investments. Turkey competes with the EU not with its weak economies but with its strong countries. Due to the established investment tradition in these countries, the EU's total investments are approximately 40 times greater than ours. Another negative situation concerns indicators related to the proper use of resources for innovation. Our country lags behind the EU average in placing research-suitable human resources in appropriate research projects, directing academic personnel toward production-oriented research, or bringing research conducted in industry to internationally recognized academic levels. To put it briefly, our industry, especially our SMEs that do not shy away from investing in technology despite all economic adversities, is ready to take the next major step. Our only shortcoming is creating research conditions where we can properly use the technical workforce provided by universities.

The Role of Universities in Cooperation

The basic duty of universities is, on the one hand, to provide education and teaching services, and on the other, to conduct research in basic and applied fields. The primary purpose of the research conducted is to produce knowledge and add new knowledge to existing knowledge. Basic research comprises most of the research conducted by universities, while applied research comprises some of it. Through conducted applied research, practical solutions to industry problems are provided. In other words, universities, on the one hand, produce the R&D personnel needed by industry through their education and teaching activities, while on the other, they attempt to generate knowledge in areas that industry will need through research. The concept of university-industry cooperation can be expressed as follows: "It is the totality of systematic work conducted by universities by combining their current resources with industry's current resources for scientific, technological, and economic developments. In other words, it is the totality of scientific, technological, and economic activities resulting from the combination, within a system, of the existing knowledge accumulation and trained human resources in universities with industry's current experience and financial power." As the production of high-value-added products through innovation leads to modern equipment investments and advanced technology needs, we mentioned above that a degree of continuity has been gained in terms of attracting foreign investors to the country through this investment source. As a next step, trained human resources and knowledge accumulation are needed to ensure that technology is brought into the country's economy either through production or transfer. Universities assume the role of providing these two elements and make their initial contributions to innovation. On the other hand, failure to establish an efficient cooperation model between university and industry brings two problems: Either trained and qualified personnel are employed in inappropriate roles in industry, or university laboratories allocated for educational services are engaged in unsuitable projects. The first of these problems is one that industry must solve internally, while the second is one that universities must solve internally. However, since our priority is establishing cooperation, we must create working models that can minimize the effects of current unfavorable conditions and turn favorable conditions to our advantage. In addressing this model, the two most important studies conducted are a survey by the Ministry of Industry and another by the Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB).

The Ministry of Industry's Survey

The Ministry of Industry named its work "Public University-Industry Cooperation" (KÜSİ) and aimed to conduct a bureaucratic evaluation of the related cooperation goals from the updated 2015 Turkey Industrial Strategy Document based on the Tenth Five-Year Development Plan. In this evaluation, 6 main targets and 31 action plans to achieve them were planned. The prominent targets are briefly as follows: [7] 1. Create institutional structure, communication, and perception in cooperation. 2. Make legal arrangements. 3. Develop financial resources and support mechanisms. 4. Develop the administrative and technical infrastructure of KÜSİ stakeholders. 5. Develop qualified human resources. TOBB's Survey TOBB's completed detailed work aims to create a roadmap for university and industry cooperation studies in our country. In this survey work, by conducting interviews with many people from both industry and academia, the question of what the biggest obstacles to establishing cooperation are was asked, and solution proposals from the parties were compiled, resulting in a working methodology. [8] The issues that industry sees as problems in the study stand out as follows: 1. Due to lack of communication and coordination, parties are distrustful and prejudiced toward each other. 2. The fact that conducting cooperation with industry does not bring any return for faculty members' academic careers. 3. The difference between academia and industry's ways of doing business and performance criteria. 4. The inability to find sufficient faculty members who would meet both industry's and academia's needs. 5. Faculty members' insufficient familiarity with industry and their addressing cooperation-related problems only from an academic perspective.

Some solution proposals that emerged in the answers given by the university community to the survey are as follows:

• 1. Universities should be encouraged to specialize considering the needs of the region where they were primarily established; regional deficiencies or needs should be identified, and universities should prepare their infrastructure to become part of the R&D ecosystem strategically envisioned in that region. 2. The number of faculty positions given to universities actively cooperating with industry should be greater than those not doing so. 3. Quotas should be reserved for those employed in the industrial sector among candidates wishing to pursue master's and doctoral degrees; care should be taken to allow these individuals to select their thesis subjects from problems in their own industrial establishments; incentives should be provided to firms employing industry personnel who have completed master's or doctoral degrees, encouraging employees in these establishments to pursue higher education. 4. Projects and work conducted by faculty members within the framework of industrial cooperation should be evaluated as an academic advancement criterion. For example, there should be a requirement to work in industry for a certain period before doctoral or professorship degrees, or at least additional points for having completed a certain number of projects within the framework of industrial cooperation. 5. Doctoral personnel working in R&D centers should be allowed to teach at universities, participate in research programs, and participate in the university research environment with a status similar to "visiting researcher." The capability of instructors in project writing should be increased, with training provided at the academic level in this regard.

As a result of this work, consensus has been reached on 4 main action plans regarding the establishment of cooperation:

1. Establishing a concrete management structure for university-industry cooperation. 2. Shaping university infrastructure according to industry needs. 3. Reviewing existing regulations and support programs, and ensuring their continuous updating in line with developments. 4. Ensuring coordinated operation of interface structures between university and industry (technoparks, technology transfer offices, etc.). This survey work, which includes quite detailed action steps, currently represents the clearest roadmap in the field of university-industry cooperation—the last step to be taken in Turkey's innovative transformation—and the impression that the problems and solution proposals presented here are realistic is shared by many people in both academia and industry.

Sources [1] Lorre, Chuck, Prady, Bill; The Bang Theory; (2007-2019); Warner Bros. Television Distribution [2] Lee, Keun and Mathews, John Alwyn; South Korea and Taiwan; 2012; Technological Opportunity, Technological Leadership Change, and Latecomers' R&D Resource Allocation between Innovation and Imitation, Chapter 6. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646005.003.0006 [3] Al-Soufi, Ali; The Role of a Collaborative Research Network (CRN) in Improving the Arabian Gulf Countries' Performance in Research and Innovation; International Journal of Technology Diffusion, 2(3), 24-35, July-September 2011 DOI: 10.4018/jtd.2011070103 [4] Anastassopoulos, Geroge and Georgiou, Christos; Location attractiveness for Foreign Direct Investment of EU New Member–Countries in comparison with old ones; Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 8, No. 5, 2008 ; DOI:10.1504/IJEIM.2008.022318 [5] Maradana et al.; Does innovation promote economic growth? Evidence from European countries; Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2017) 6:1 DOI: DOI 10.1186/s13731-016-0061-9 [6] Turkey, European Innovation Scoreboard 2019,

https:// ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/innovation/scoreboards_en [7] Ministry of Industry [8] Yardımcı, Atilla and Müftüoğlu, Elif; Industry's Expectations and Problems in University-Industry Cooperation; Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges Publications; 2014 [9] Işık, Metin; Çiçek, Berat; The Effect of University-Industry Cooperation on Development: The Case of Bitlis and Muş Provinces; ÜNİDAP International Regional Development Conference (Muş-2016) [10] Dikmen, Muhammed; Baysal, Hatice; Research on the Workplace Training Model of the Faculty of Technology within the Scope of University-Industry Cooperation; International Journal of Sustainable Engineering and Technology; Issue: 1, Volume: 1, (2017), Pages: 35-46 [11] Karagöl, Erdal Tanas; Karahan, Hatice; New Economy: R&D and Innovation; Politics, Economy and Society Research Foundation, 2014, Ankara [12] Avcıoğlu, Cem; The Right Step for the Future: R&D and Innovation; Turkish Industrial Development Bank Inc.; Economic Research; June 2019 [13] Seres et al; A Performance Indicators of University-Industry Collaboration; 11th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies; July 2019; DOI: 10.21125/edulearn.2019.2413 [14] Al-Tabbaa; Universities—industry collaboration: A systematic review; Article in Scandinavian Journal of Management; January 2016; DOI: 10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.00 [15] Alkan, Reha Metin; Some Suggestions for University-Industry Cooperation; Journal of Higher Education 2014;4(2):61–68; DOI: 10.2399/yod.14.0111

    Serhat Öztürk Metallurgy and Materials Engineer Platech Metal Coating Systems