Developers”: key actors of the innovation process. Types of developers and their contacts to...

Technovation 20 (2000) 523–538www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation

“Developers”: key actors of the innovation process. Types ofdevelopers and their contacts to institutions involved in research

and development, continuing education and training, and thetransfer of technology

Andreas Balthasara,*, Christoph Ba¨ttig a, Alain Thiersteinb, Beate Wilhelmb

a Institute for Policy Studies (INTERFACE), Kapellgasse 1, CH-6004 Luzern, Switzerlandb Institute for Public Services and Tourism (IDT-HSG) at the University of St.Gall, Varnbuelstrasse 19, CH-9000 St. Gall, Switzerland

Received 23 August 1999; received in revised form 5 October 1999; accepted 7 December 1999

Abstract

The optimization of the interface between science and economy has become one of the most important guidelines of technologypolicy. The article argues that developer’s networks play an important role in the innovation process and therefore should be betterintegrated in the conception of technology policy.

The article presents the results of a research project conducted for the Swiss National Science Foundation. The study took acloser look at the patterns of professional relationships among those people — so called “developers” — who are occupied withtechnological innovation on a day-by-day basis. The conclusions for technology policy focus around institutional improvements ofthe developer’s professional networking needs.

After a short introduction to the theoretical foundations of the approach (Section 1), Section 2 clarifies the question “To whomdo developers turn when they require technical assistance?”. Section 3 is devoted to the various types of institutions, where devel-opers turn when they need technical support and which display different profiles of attractivity and competence to developers.Starting from that basis, Section 4 formulates some suggestions for policy-makers, who are engaged in shaping the interface betweenscience and industry. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Innovation process; Developers; Interface science and economy; Technology transfer; Technology policy

Although countries such as Switzerland, Germany andAustria are not lacking in scientific and technical knowl-edge, a deficit does exist in the transfer of this knowl-edge into industrial practice: the results of research anddevelopment could be implemented quicker and moreefficiently into marketable output and be used to benefitthe economy (Schweizerischer Bundesrat, 1997; Arvan-itis et al., 1995). Thus, in many countries an optimizationof the interface between science and economy hasbecome one of the most important guidelines of tech-nology policy. The objective is to create systems able to

* Corresponding author. Tel.:+41-41-4120712; fax: +41-41-4105182.

E-mail addresses:[email protected] (A.Balthasar), [email protected] (A. Thierstein), [email protected] (B. Wilhelm).

0166-4972/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0166-4972 (99)00180-7

function as a link between industry and public insti-tutions that are involved in research and development aswell as continuing education and training in order toboost innovation within the economy (Balthasar andKnopfel, 1993).

Whereas the intention is clearly formulated, the ques-tion of how to solve the task remains unclear becauseprevious initiatives under the title “technology transfer”have frequently failed to achieve the desired success(Hofmann, 1993; Beise et al., 1995). In this context,recent studies relating to scientific innovation indicatethat the policy would benefit if it did not consider thetransfer of technology as simply buying and sellingcomponents of technology. It is more appropriate toassume cooperation and communication between theactors involved (Knodt, 1996, 289 ff.). This is parti-cularly true if technical innovation is induced by prob-

524 A. Balthasar et al. / Technovation 20 (2000) 523–538

lems of industrial practice, i.e. they start with a market-related problem and can at best be indirectly attributedto scientific impulses (Hofmann, 1993).

In such a perspective the developer’s networks playan important role in the innovation process. The pro-fessional relationships of engineers, designers, tech-nicians and developers who deal every day with techni-cal problems such as improving existing products andprocedures or developing new ones are decisive for swiftand future-driven problem-solving. Although infor-mation on the networks of developers would byimportant for the formulation of an efficient technologypolicy, the respective knowledge is relatively sparse. Aresearch project conducted for the Swiss NationalScience Foundation therefore tried to fill some gaps(Balthasar, 1998). The empirical basis of the study was,on the one hand, a written survey of 244 developersemployed in Switzerland’s Baden-Wu¨rttemberg’s (theGerman state bordering both Switzerland and Austria)and Austria’s machine tool and plastics processingindustries. On the other hand some 30 in-depth inter-views were made with responsible managers of relevantinstitutions involved in research and development, con-tinuing education and training and the transfer of tech-nology.

By focussing on the role of developers, who in factare in charge with the technical part of innovation, wedo not contest the importance of other key personswithin the innovation process. This holds especially forpeople in management and marketing who are respon-sible for the firm’s innovative processes and the respect-ive market success of its products. However, we stronglyfelt the need to have a closer look at the patterns ofprofessional relationships among those people who areoccupied with technological innovation on a day-by-daybasis. The aim of research was not so much to developa new comprehensive model of the innovation process,but to better understand the needs and behaviour of animportant but frequently neglected group of actorswithin the innovation process. This approach to theanalysis may contribute to a re-formulation of tech-nology policy and put the people in charge with continu-ous technological innovation at center stage for once.

In the following, we will introduce the theoreticalfoundations of our approach (Section 1) and then clarifythe question “To whom do developers turn when theyrequire technical assistance?” (Section 2). Section 3 willdevote our attention to the various types of institutionsinvolved in research and development, continuing edu-cation and training and the transfer of technology. It isthese institutions which developers turn to when theyneed technical support and which display different pro-files of attractivity and competence to developers. Usingthis as a basis, we then will formulate some suggestionsfor policy-makers in Section 4, who are engaged in shap-ing the interface between science and industry.

1. Developers’ networks: theoretical background

Recent studies of the technology genesis process makeit clear that innovation takes place within networks com-prising numerous participants (e.g. Williams and Edge,1996). According to Asdonk et al. (1991, 1993), tech-nology emerges in the crossing of manufacture andapplication, i.e. in the combination of scientifically gen-erated and applicable knowledge. Innovations are notsimply designed on the drawing board, manufactured inthe production department and then brought onto themarket by the sales department. On the contrary, devel-opers’ new ideas are often discussed with their col-leagues from the production and sales departments orwith potential consumers at a very early stage. Ideas,needs and suggestions are introduced from all angles.Innovations are the result of iterative negotiation pro-cesses of various groups involved. Some are internalemployees who are involved in the construction,employed in the workshop or work in sales. Others areexternal customers, suppliers or consultants involved inthe development process. The model emphasizes that thedevelopment of new technology does not take place overa variety of stages or phases in a gradient line from thetop to the bottom, but that numerous feedback loopscharacterize all phases of innovation.

Developers form the heart of these networks. Meta-phorically speaking, one could say that it is the devel-opers who are pushed and pulled by scientific and econ-omic impulses and “make” technical developments.Being in contact with the academic world, other pro-ducers or consulting companies, their attention is drawnto ideas which could lead to a solution to their practicalproblems. The majority of developers are primarilyintent on implementing technical innovations uponwhich they can base upon their previous knowledge.Being employees of industrial companies, they arestrongly lead by cost-benefit considerations. Innovationsalways involve tension between the desire to remain ina routine and the danger of missing new developments(Nelson and Winter, 1982). Developers have internalizedthese tensions. They form the interface between scienceand the economy. They are informed about the state oftechnology and are thus indispensable employees fortechnology-driven firms. They combine existing techni-cal information in a new way and in doing so open uptechnical opportunities. Direct contact between scienceand industry can rarely be fruitful if it is not mediatedby a developer. From this perspective, the communi-cation and cooperation of developers is considered to beextremely important for technical development.

Compared with scientists and managers, developershave their own quality-related criteria. Scientists aregeared towards international and scientific research com-

525A. Balthasar et al. / Technovation 20 (2000) 523–538

munities.1 Basic research, Nobel prizes and inter-nationally renowned journals are their point of reference.In contrast, developers do not endeavor to achieve scien-tific progress in particular disciplines, but rather to solvespecific technical problems. Finally, managers orientthemselves according to the dynamics of the market.Continuous clashes between market and technology area sign of differing quality-related criteria valued by man-agers and developers. Developers are neither obliged toencourage scientific progress nor market forces: Theyrespond to the rules of technical innovation. In order tobe able to deal with the balancing act between stabilityand change, developers support themselves with thecompound practice and conquered knowledge gainedinside and outside the company by a community of pro-fessional colleagues.

Despite their importance for the innovation process,developers and their networks have rarely been subjectto scientific research. One of the most important contri-butions comes from the American technology historianEdward W. Constant. He describes the network of air-craft constructors, whose members did not only work asdevelopment and design engineers in private companies,but also as practical scientists employed by institutionsinvolved in technical training and education. The parti-cipants have a variety of educational backgrounds, e.g.aerodynamics, machine tool engineering or metallurgy.However, they are closely connected by the commonproblem of developing new types of aircraft (Constant1980, 1986). Constant speaks of a “community of prac-titioners”. Based on the association of solidarity-basedconnections, which are linked by the idea of a com-munity, we prefer to use the term “network”. To under-line the importance of this network for the innovationprocess, we speak of “developers” instead of “prac-titioners”.

“Network of developers” makes it clear that we alsowant to record loose and, in the formal sense, uncom-mitted relations between people, who deal with finding asolution to technical problems. “Network of developers”refers to the network of professional relationshipsbetween developers. For developers, the ability to beinnovative, based on their education and integrationwithin a network of professional communication andcooperation relationships, means possessing a specificpotential to create and select information and to be ableto originally combine it with existing corporatestrengths. The network is based on educational contactsand is continuously developed at work through contactwith customers, suppliers and competitors via associ-ations, trade fairs and exhibitions and conveyed by tech-

1 The independence of technology in comparison with science andthe economy is also emphasized in Bell and Callon (1994), Onida andMalerba (1989) and Gibbons et al. (1994).

nical journals, participation in training and educationevents or simply in leisure time. The developer’s consti-tutive, shared practical experience and subsequently con-quered knowledge, which contribute to his identity, formthe basis of the innovation process (Constant, 1986).Methodical rules, fashionable topics and ideas aboutmarket needs are passed on and developed by networksof information. Individuals who discover new opport-unities, exchange information and activate resources areat the center of this process. Personal communicationforms the heart of this interaction.

Zundorf and Dierkes in Berlin, both German sociol-ogists, have examined independently the communicationnetworks of people who are employed in technical devel-opment more closely. In his study about “overcomingproblems predominantly in companies of medium-sizedindustries”, Zundorf identifies a “helpful and consideratenetwork of experts” (Zu¨ndorf et al., 1993 and Zu¨ndorf,1994, p. 244). It involves an informal network of pro-fessional cooperation-based relationships between busi-nesses which is not organized according to market rules,but according to professional expert culture. Studies con-ducted by Meinolf Dierkes and his colleagues also illus-trate that development engineers are integrated within aseparated construction tradition above and beyond thefirm. On the one hand, this determines the individualproblem-solving process and on the other hand it decis-ively fixes the course of technical development. Duringmore frequent social contact in groups, members developa network with shared ideas, perceptions and patterns ofbehavior. Developers view the pool of available knowl-edge in relation to targeted innovation through the filterof their respective construction tradition. Consciously orsubconsciously, this serves as selection criteria fordetermining which segments of knowledge in the poolare relevant and which are irrelevant (Dierkes, 1993). Itis decisive that developers place the detecting, selectingand recombining of existing knowledge before corpor-ate traditions.

Technical innovations can be regarded in the devel-oper’s network concept as a learning process within asocial group. Helmers (1991, 1993) is one of the authorssupporting this view. If developer’s networks are to formthe basis for an effective technology policy, it is funda-mental that the networks are capable of learning. Theymust be open to new ideas in order to develop them-selves further in a dynamic manner. Various studies haveillustrated that where long-term and stable personalrelationships exist, there is a risk that a common impedi-ment to learning will occur. In such a situation, there isno room for potentially new, unaccustomed informationwhich comes from outside (Grabher, 1993; Kalkowskiet al., 1995). Whether networks develop and with whatdynamic is thus a question of an optimal density ofrelationships. Closely interconnected networks are cer-tainly indispensable for incremental innovation, which


presumably constitutes the majority of innovations.However, they hinder fundamental innovation whichrequires a different pattern of thought, a different langu-age and different connections. Despite the problem ofoptimal density, there is no disputing that developer’scommunication networks have a considerable influenceon their ability to solve problems.

2. Developer’s networks: empirical results

The above mentioned studies give only very littleinsight either into the structure of the developer’s infor-mation networks or into the role of institutions withinthese networks. In order to learn more, we sent out aquestionnaire to developers in the machine tool and theplastics processing industries in Switzerland, Baden-Wurttemberg (the German state bordering both Switzer-land and Austria) and Austria. This questionnaire wasanswered by 244 developers, which corresponds to aresponse rate of between 3% in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg’smachine tool industry and 26% in the Swiss plastics pro-cessing industry. Fig. 1 shows that in all of the threecountries and two branches the large majority ofresponding developers are employed in medium-sizedcompanies.

With the intention of being able to identify the centeror core of the professional network, developers wereasked to name their five most important contact personswho help them solve technical problems occurring withtheir work. As a main result more than 90% of the devel-opers said that at least one of the members of their coreprofessional network is located outside the own com-pany. This result is partly due to the fact that a largepart of the developers work with firms with between 50and 249 employees. Beyond this size effect, the resultemphasizes — even more than previously conductedstudies2 — the importance of external contacts for devel-opers involved in solving concrete technical problems.On average, almost two thirds of the members of these

Fig. 1. Distribution of response according to firm size.

2 For an overview, see: Hassink (1996).

core professional networks are located outside the owncompany.

Considering our three regions and two branches, thestudy draws a truly uniform picture of the compositionof developer’s core professional networks. Developersin Switzerland, Baden-Wu¨rttemberg and Austria inmachine tool and plastics processing industries havenumerous external contacts which they use to deal withtechnical problems. Independent of industry or regionthe order of precedence for individual categories is verysimilar. Fig. 2 demonstrates that colleagues in one’s owncompany as well as those who work with suppliers playthe most important role in core professional networks.Members of institutions involved in training and edu-cation, research and development and the transfer oftechnology (in future we will use “institutions” for short)have a secondary, but still significant position in thesenetworks. Even from the perspective of these insti-tutions, the results of our study paint a more optimisticpicture than the majority of comparable studies (e.g.Herden, 1992).

Based on a survey from 242 developers in Switzer-land, Baden-Wu¨rttemberg and Austria have a total of1109 named contacts. The developers were asked: “Whoare the five most important contacts/persons regardingthe resolution of technical problems in your work?”. Thedesign of the questionnaire was such that first the namesof contacts had to be written down and then they had tobe qualified according to certain criteria (place of worketc.). The list of names could be detached after the com-pletion of the questionnaire so that the anonymity of thecontacts could be guaranteed.

Taking the composition of core professional networksinto consideration, our study identifies three types ofdevelopers:

O internally-oriented developers, whose core pro-fessional networks consist exclusively of members oftheir own company;

O externally-oriented developers, whose core pro-


Fig. 2. Share of members in core professional networks according to place of work.

fessional networks include at least one person outsidetheir own company but nobody being a member ofan institution;

O and developers whose core professional networksinclude at least one person working at an institutionand whom we thus describe asinstitution-orienteddevelopers.

Fig. 3 reveals the frequency of each individual typeaccording to industry, region, qualification and com-pany size.

Interestingly enough, there is hardly a differencebetween both industries in the proportion of differenttypes of developers. Almost one third is institution-ori-ented and thus have at least one contact to an institution.Approximately 60% of developers are externally-ori-ented. A comparison of the study’s three areas alsoresults in few differences. The only difference in Austriais that the proportion of institution-oriented developersis greater. In Switzerland, 29% of developers can bedescribed as institutionally-oriented. In comparison, thesize of the company in which the developer works alsoinfluences their external orientation. There are clearlymore institutionally-oriented developers in large compa-nies. This difference is not statistically significant, how-ever.

The most prominent differences regarding external

orientation can be observed between different edu-cational levels. Developers with a higher educationallevel are clearly more oriented toward institutions thantheir colleagues without higher education. Statistically,this difference is highly significant.3 It can be presumedthat, as a result of their education, these people havedirect contact to professors and employees of insti-tutions, which they continue to cultivate after graduating.In comparison, people who do not have a higher edu-cation tend to be internally-oriented and do not have con-tacts outside their own company.

Up to here, our analysis has focussed on the personalnetworks of developers, that is the core of their pro-fessional relationship. This sort of relationship comeclose to what Granovetter (1973) calls “strong ties”.Granovetter however, has pointed out that “weak ties”in social networks are often more essential for new infor-mation than well established relationships. Various stud-ies have even illustrated that where long-term and stablepersonal relationships exist, there is a danger that a com-mon impediment to learning will occur. In such a situ-ation, there is no room for potentially new, unaccus-

3 According to Pearson’sχ2 the difference in education betweeninternally-, externally- and institution-oriented developers is highlysignificant (on the 1% level).


Fig. 3. The three types of developers according to industry, region, qualification and place of work. With a higher education: Technical Universityor FH/HTL (Polytechnical University/higher technical colleges) graduates; without a higher education: vocational school, vocational school withadditional qualifications, others; small Firms: up to 49 employees; medium Firms: 50 to 249 employees; large Firms: more than 250 employees.Significance levels: only the difference in education is significant (on the 1% level).

tomed information which comes from outside (Grabher,1993; Kalkowski et al., 1995). Closely interconnectednetworks are certainly indispensable for incrementalinnovation, which presumably constitutes the majorityof innovations. However, they may hinder fundamentalinnovation which requires a different pattern of thought,a different language and different connections.

Our own empirical study is only partly is able to partlyreconstruct “weak ties” of developers. We started withthe hypothesis that research and educational institutionsare not only important sources of information and ideasrelated to innovation. Thus we asked developers whetherthey maintain personal contacts with people from theseinstitutions. Consequently, we asked whether the devel-opers get in touch with such institutions in the contextof seminars for training or exchanging work experiences,of consulting activities or of joint development projects.These kinds of contacts or relations are named “direct

contacts” with institutions. Fig. 4 depicts not only thesedirect contacts but additionally shows “indirect contacts”with institutions; indirect means in our context thatadditional network contacts with these institutions canbe activated via the most important contact personswithin the respective network.

Direct contacts: in the context of seminars for trainingor exchanging work experiences, of consulting activitiesor of joint development projects. Indirect contacts: con-tacts with institutions maintained by persons that are partof the personal network of the developers.

“Weak ties” to institutions, like participating in train-ing seminars or seminars for exchanging work experi-ences etc, dominate the number of contacts. Moreintense committments like being involved in joint devel-opment projects are rather rare; the exception is themachine tool industry in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg and Aus-tria.


Fig. 4. Contacts of developers with institutions.

On average, around 80% of the developers in our sam-ple have direct contacts and 10% get indirect contactswith institutions which help them in their innovativeactivities. Exceptions well below average are the Swissmachine tool industry and the German plastics pro-cessing industry with shares of around 60% of directcontacts. Taking into consideration all the indirect con-tacts, only about 10% of all the developers in our sampledo not have any contact with institutions related to theirwork. The single exception is the plastics processingindustry in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg where more than 30%of the developers do not mention either direct or indirectcontacts with institutions, an interesting fact in the lightof the many personal contacts with colleagues workingat institutions. One explanation is that the relevant insti-tutions in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg operate in a way moredetached to the daily needs of the German developersthan do their counterpart institutions in Switzerlandand Austria.

To sum up, it is obvious that the large majority ofdevelopers in our sample have contacts with relevantinstitutions. The bulk of these contacts is of a more loosekind, like participating in seminars, training and confer-ences. Continuous and personal relations within the con-text of core professional networks are but rare. It can bepresumed that these stronger ties are frequently based onrelationships which date back to the time where peopleget to know each other during their higher professionaleducation and training. It is at the start of their pro-fessional career, where developers establish direct con-

tacts to members of institutions, which they continue tocultivate after graduating.

3. Typology of institutions and their attractivity fordevelopers

The following section will focus on the relationshipbetween developers and institutions. In the first step wepresent a differentiation between four types of insti-tutions according to the mode of financial funding. Laterwe will analyze the attractiveness of different insti-tutional types for different types of developers.

3.1. Types of institutions

There are numerous sorts of institutions involved intraining and education, research and development andthe transfer of technology trying to intensify contactsbetween science and industry. For this analysis onlyinstitutions which have been frequently contacted bydevelopers were taken into account.4 We visited all theseinstitutions, analyzed documents and conducted in-depthinterviews with managers in charge. This largely quali-tative approach allowed us to develop different types ofinstitutions. As the research project has a clear policy

4 “Frequently contacted institutions” refers to those institutionswhich at least 10% of the developers maintain contacts with.


perspective we chose the various modes of financialfunding of these institutions as criterion to distinguishthe following four types of institutions:5

O “Science” Type: The “science” type relies on con-siderable research funds independent of industry. Itessentially finances itself by basic funding for thebenefit of universities as well as funds for programsrelating to fundamental or applied research.

O “Practical Research” Type: “Practical research”type institutions largely cover their expenses withfunds which come from R&D programs by govern-ments and from project cooperation with industry.

O “Problem Solving” Type: Industry plays a decisiverole in maintaining“problem solving” type of insti-tutions. Industry makes financial resources availablee.g. via support groups or via participation in differentevents. However, it also supports institutes by fundingresearch semesters for professors and provides equip-ment for training and education. Furthermore, it pro-vides tasks for examinations investigations and smallcase studies. The institutions are thus able to managewithout considerable long-term public funding.

O “Rapid-Response” Type: The “rapid-response” typeof institutions is mainly financed by basic funding tofulfill teaching activities. It receives no substantialfunding for research or transfer purposes.

In Fig. 5 the institutions are positioned within a trianglewhich represents the three basic modes of financial fund-ing: “independent state financing for the foundation ofan institution”, “project-related money for state researchand development programs” and “industrial fundingfrom third parties”.6

To put it clearly, the clusters in Fig. 5 do not coverall institutions which were analyzed in this study. TheAustrian part of the research resulted in more of a con-tinuum between institutions of vocational training andeducation and institutions, which make their mark as anenterprise’s pure problem solver (Thierstein andWilhelm, 1997). In addition, it is also clear from thesurveys in Switzerland and in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg thatthe financing structure which was introduced does notdepict a sufficient condition of success. This means thatnot all institutions with similar financial patterns areaddresses of reference for developers who require tech-nical assistance. As a consequence, these types are to beconsidered as models that rarely appear in reality in pureform. However the typology contributes to develop pre-

5 A detailed description of the four types of institutions followsshortly after this overview.

6 Fig. 5 is based on data from 1996, which was collected duringpersonal interviews with managers in charge of the institutions. Assome of these institutions do not maintain financial statistics accordingto the categories we utilized, some of the figures had to be adapted.

conditions for the institutions to be successful on themarket, that is to establish intensive contacts with devel-opers as their customers.

In the following we describe each of these institutionaltypes and have a look at their respective “attractiveness”for different types of developers.

3.1.1. “Science” type of institutionsThis type includes institutes at universities and col-

leges, which not only pursue basic research, but alsoplace a lot of value on practical studies. Developers turnto them when they are explicitly searching for a connec-tion with scientific development. Customers are prim-arily developers who work in medium-sized and largecompanies and have experience in cooperation withinstitutions. They also form the ideal target audience forthe “science” type of institutions, who are less interestedin every day practical problems than in milestones oftechnical development. As technical university institutes,they typically have a staff with some widely reknownexperts in certain fields of excellence who attract,through their image of competence, a wide array of cus-tomers. These scientists follow high scientific and teach-ing standards set by an international academic com-munity. This requires publications in internationaljournals and regular peer reviews. “Celebrity” scientistsoften organise training courses, discussion forums, sem-inars and much more to keep in contact with those whoused to be their students at the time.

“Science” type institutions rely on an expensive infra-structure and considerable research funds independentfrom industry. Institutions of this nature are, forexample, the Institute for Design Methods and Construc-tion at the Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zur-ich, the Institute for Metal Forming Technologies atStuttgart University or the Institute for Material Scienceand Testing of Plastics (IWK) in Leoben. In Switzerland,this type will also be more likely to succeed in future inan ETH environment.

Example of the Institute for Design Methodsand Construction at the Federal Institute of Tech-nology ETH Zurich . The Institute for DesignMethods and Construction deals with the develop-ment of finishing processes and machines as well asquestions relating to the selection of materials, con-struction, structuring and recycling fiber-basedmaterials. Theory at the ETH Institute in Zurich andresearch in the Composite Laboratory are at the centerof concern. The Composite Laboratory was con-structed with considerable financial support from theuniversity for the specific purpose of ensuring thatscientific discoveries are of practical benefit forSwiss industry.

In 1996 approximately 60 people worked at the Insti-


Fig. 5. Typology of institutions according to basic modes of funding. The institutions that have been portrayed are those with whom at least 10%of developers questioned maintain contact. In addition, the Institute of Forming Technology at the ETH Zurich and the Interstate Institute ofTechnology of St. Gallen ISG were included in the picture because 9% of Swiss developers have contacts there. Institutions with whom more than20% of questioned developers in one region have contact have been typed in bold.Key: ISG: Interstate Institute of Technology of St. Gall; K+B:Institute for Design Methods and Construction at the ETH in Zurich; IWF: Institute of Manufacturing Technology and Machine Tools at the ETHin Zurich; IFU: Institute for Metal Forming Technologies at Stuttgart University; UETH: Institute of Forming Technology at the ETH in Zurich;WZL: Laboratory for Machine Tools and Production Engineering in Aachen; ISW: Institute of Control Technology for Machine Tools and Manufac-turing Units at Stuttgart University; FH-Aalen: Steinbeis Transfer Center in Aalen; SKZ: Su¨ddeutsches Kunststoffzentrum in Wu¨rzburg; IKV:Institute of Plastic Processing in Aachen; KATZ: Plastic Educational and Technological Training in Aarau; IMECO: Institute of Applied Mechanicsand Machine Construction at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne; IPA: Institute of Manufacturing Engineering of the FraunhoferSociety in Stuttgart; WBK: Institute for Machine Tools and Production Science in Stuttgart; ZFS: Center for Production Technology in Stuttgart;TU-Vienna: Institute of Design Engineering, Transport and Handling Systems at the TU in Vienna; TU-Graz: Institute for Production Engineeringat the TU in Graz; KST-TGM: Laboratory for Polymer Engineering Ltd. at the Institute of technology TGM, Vienna; LKT: Laboratory for PolymericEngineering in Vienna; O¨ KI: Austrian Plastic Institute in Vienna; Leoben-IKV: Institute of Polymer Processing in Leoben; Leoben-IWK: Instituteof Material Science and Testing of Plastics in Leoben; Leoben-IKT: Institute of Plastics Technology in Leoben; DKI: German Plastics Institute inDarmstadt; ETH-Poly: Institute of Polymers at the ETH Zurich, IBZ: State-Recognized School for Technical Engineers TS in Brugg.

tute and in the Composite Laboratory, two thirds asPh.D. students. Being part of the ETH, the Institute pro-fited from basic financing from the Swiss Confederation.Funding from third parties was also brought in: First,this includes money for basic research. The funds prim-arily come from internal ETH sources as well as fromthe Swiss National Science Foundation. The Swiss Pri-ority Program for materials also plays an important role.Second, funds from public programs for supportingapplied research, such as the Swiss Commission forTechnology and Innovation KTI or EuropeanBRITE/EURAM program are important. Furthercooperation for projects with particularly innovative

companies in the private sector exists. Here, cooperationfor large and long-term projects is primarily sought.

3.1.2. “Practical research” type of institutionThis type is fundamentally geared towards the mar-

ket’s needs for research and development. Developerswho deal with practical problems which demand long-term research studies turn to these institutions. “Practicalresearch” type institutions have established themselvesas specialists for innovative and practical solutions. Theyhave an academic staff who work on projects togetherwith industrial representatives. Fundamental research isnot considered to be a key area of responsibility for these


people. Frequently, personnel who have had many yearsof experience in project work are at hand.

“Practical research” type institutions are often uni-versity institutes that have considerably grown.Examples are the Institute for Mechanical and Oper-ational Technology (WBK) in Karlsruhe or the Labora-tory for Machine Tools and Production Engineering(WZL) in Aachen. The Fraunhofer Institute of Manufac-turing Engineering (IPA) in Stuttgart also belongs tothis group.

Example of the Fraunhofer Institute of Manu-facturing Engineering in Stuttgart (IPA) . The IPAis one of the most famous institutes within the Fraun-hofer Society. The Society considers itself to be anorganization which is at the interface between scienceand industry throughout Germany. Although one ofthe two chairmen at the IPA Institute is simul-taneously the manager of another institute at StuttgartUniversity, the Institute is excellently positioned asan institution which is independent from a university.

The focus of the Institute’s research and developmentinvolves highlighting the objectives, automation andrationalization reserves within companies in order tomaintain and improve competitiveness and jobs withimproved, more cost-effective and environmentally fri-endly production processes. In achieving these objec-tives, methods, components and pieces of equipment aredeveloped into complete machines and systems, testedand implemented in an exemplary manner. The projectsare mainly carried out on behalf of industrial companies.In addition, projects that are promoted by public researchprograms are also embarked upon.

The Institute employs approximately 180 academicsand non-academics as well as around twice as many stu-dents in the form of assistants. In 1995 the turnoveramounted to about DM 50 million, 86% of which camefrom third parties. The remainder is covered by theFraunhofer Society. Approximately half of the moneybrought in from outside came from industrial projects,one quarter from public funds which benefited appliedresearch and one quarter from basic research. The IPA’scustomers are primarily companies with 200 to 1000employees. Almost one third of all projects are perfor-med for regular customers.

3.1.3. “Problem solving” type of institutionsThis type is institutionally independent from existing

schools. Developers approach “problem solving” insti-tutions when they want to educate themselves further orwhen they want to have material or type examinationsperformed. This type is asked to investigate simple prob-lems of product and process optimization. The origin of“problem solving” institutions often goes right back tothe initiative of industry. This connection has financial

consequences and perhaps forms important conditionsfor the success of this type. The industry’s motive canbe many and diverse: It is possible that a loophole short-age exists in the supply of continuing education andtraining, which industry wishes to satisfy through a com-bined effort. However, it is also conceivable that theneed for a neutral point of measure and examination ora competent consulting partner exists.

The Plastics Educational and Technological TrainingCentre (KATZ) in Aarau or the Steinbeis-TransferCenter in Aalen can be considered as examples for the“problem solving” type.

Example of the Training and Technology Centerfor Synthetics (KATZ) in Aarau . The Training andTechnology Center for Synthetics (KATZ) wasfounded in 1993. The most important trigger for itsfoundation was the urgent need for Swiss syntheticprocessing industry to catch up in professional train-ing and continuing education. The main focus ofactivities also lies in this area. In 1995 a total of 70courses with over 800 participants took place. Themajority of courses at KATZ are run by industrialexperts. No full time lecturers are employed.

A strength of KATZ is its modern infrastructure.Machines are often made available by manufacturers.The quality of infrastructure is not only extremely usefulin view of practical training, but also for testing andmeasuring. This has contributed to KATZ becomingattractive for higher technical colleges and universitywhich have fallen back on the center’s infrastructure sev-eral times for the implementation of student internshipsas well as industrial projects.

KATZ does not receive any permanent basic financ-ing, but one-time contributions from different stateoffices. The institute’s formal sponsor is a promotionassociation comprised of approximately 200 industrialcompanies, the Canton Aargau, as well as the HigherTechnical College of Brugg-Windisch. Strategically,KATZ aims to support small and medium-sized compa-nies; however, large firms are also amongst its cus-tomers. As it is impossible for a center of this size tocover the entire breadth of technology relating to plastic-processing, the focus areas are determined by the needsof the member companies. KATZ sees itself as a turn-table between industry and school.

3.1.4. “Rapid-Response” type of institutionsThis category generally concerns chairs of professors

of higher technical colleges7 (“Ingenieurschulen”,

7 By this term we refer to non-university institutions of tertiary tech-nical education or higher educational institutions (HEI). In the case ofGermany these are termed “Fachhochschulen”, in Switzerland“Ingenieurschulen/Ho¨here Technische Lehranstalten” and nowrecently “Fachhochschulen”.


Fig. 6. Attractiveness of different types of institutions according to developer types. Proportion of contacts to different types of institutions namedby different types of developers in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg and Switzerland: institution-oriented developers. The figures within the bars give theabsolute number of named contacts to the respective type of institution. Example: There are twenty internally oriented developers who named onecontact to a science-institution, three contacts to practical-research-institutions, three contacts to problem-solving-institutions and two contacts torapid-response-institutions.

“Fachhochschulen”) or, who are called upon to solve“small” every day problems which often require animmediate response. They have not only demonstratedtechnical knowledge, but also pronounced communicat-ive abilities: They speak the developers’ language.“Rapid-Response” institutional types ensure that prob-lems are solved quickly and in an unbureaucratic manneras well as involving regional industry in scientificresearch. In this sense, they take on innovative, indis-pensable functions.

Example of the Synthetic Technology faculty,University of Technology — Esslingen. Plastic pro-cessing is a main focus of the machine tool engineer-ing and production technology faculties at the Univer-sity of Technology in Esslingen. The training ofstudents is at the center of activity. Consulting andapplied research is also practiced on a small scale.Customers are fundamentally supervised by a pro-fessor who is in charge of an engineer allocated tohim and approximately 1.5 additional positionsresponsible for the technical and administrative areas.The institute is entirely financed by the state ofBaden-Wu¨rttemberg. In comparison, the laboratoryobtains around 30% itself by careful management. Alarge proportion of machines and equipment in thelaboratory are made available by industry.

Industrial applications almost exclusively take placeas a result of the professors’ personal contacts. On theone hand they are based on relationships that he hasestablished during his many years of activity in industry.On the other hand they arise as a result of his involve-ment in lecturing and teaching, for example, at the Tech-nical Academy in Esslingen. Advertising in the strictersense is not undertaken at all, as capacity is fully occu-pied. The majority of orders come from small enterpriseswhich possess neither scientific personnel nor equipmentand software for testing and measuring and turn to uni-versity professors in this regard. As a rule, mandatesare small.

The university’s Steinbeis Transfer Center simplifiesthe administrative method of dealing with orders. Billingcustomers over the foundation relieves professors fromadministrative tasks and prevents conflicts between theschool’s management and lecturers regarding maximumpermissible secondary income.

3.2. The attractiveness of different institutional types

When we combine the knowledge of the differenttypes of developers with our typology of institutions, wefind various patterns of relationships (Fig. 6).

Not surprisingly, internally-oriented developers onlyhave few contacts to institutions: twenty internally-ori-


Fig. 7. Attractiveness of different types of institutions for internally, externally and institution-oriented developers according to branch. Proportionof contacts to different types of institutions named by different types of developers in the machine tool industry (MT) and the plastic processingindustry (PP) of Baden-Wu¨rttemberg and Switzerland. The figures within the bars give the absolute number of named contacts to the respectivetype of institution. Example: In the machine tool industry of Baden-Wu¨rttemberg and Switzerland there are six internally oriented developers whonamed one contact to a science-institution, three contacts to problem-solving-institutions and two contacts to rapid-response-institutions.

ented developers only mentioned a total of 9 contacts toany of the four above mentioned types of institutions.Institutionally-oriented developers have the most fre-quent contact to the “practical research” type. Gener-ally, it is noticeable that the ranking of different typesof institutions according to the contacts is the same withall types of developers. “Practical research” type insti-tutions are the best anchored of all types of institutions.

The picture changes if we distinguish between differ-ent branches. Developers in machine tool industry tendto prefer contacts to“practical-research” type insti-tutions. Over 50% of machine tool developer’s contactsare with this type of institution (Fig. 7).

If we turn to the plastic processing industry, we canestablish that the “problem solving” institution type isthe most attractive for all types of developers. “Problemsolving” institutions are the only ones with whom intern-

ally-oriented plastics manufacturers cultivate relation-ships.

Only around 15% of institutionally-oriented contactsof developers in the plastic processing industry are with“practical research” type institutions, even less with“science” type institutions. On the whole, developers ofplastics processing industry appear to be more attractedto those institutions which are most distant from acade-mia. This can be explained by the fact that in contrastto the machine tool engineering industry, there is a muchless established network between science and industryin the plastics processing industry.8 “Problem solving”institutions, which as a rule largely return go back to

8 Regarding networks between science and the economy in machinetool engineering, refer in particular to Hirsch-Kreinsen (1994).


industrial initiatives, have taken over this function. Asthey are only capable of dealing with part of those func-tions relevant to innovation, their integration within thenetwork of institutions is particularly important.

4. Stimuli for policy

Starting with the fact that innovations frequently ariseas a result of complex interactions with intensive feed-back mechanisms between different participants fromscience and industry, it must first be the responsibility ofpublic authorities to create the most favorable conditionspossible for the structure and expansion of “developers’networks”. The role of public authorities is one of a“host” in favor of regular dialogue in the network (cf.De Bruijn and ten Heuvelhof, 1997). How to do itremains the question which we in part try to answer inthe next section, where the most suitable policy instru-ments are presented. They directly result from the aboveempirical analysis and were strongly shaped by the manyinterviews with managers in charge at the various insti-tutions visited. The instruments we recommend arebased on our initial hypothesis that research and edu-cational institutions not are important sources of infor-mation and ideas related to innovation. Therefore itseems reasonable that developers maintain as manyintensive contacts with these institutions as possible. Asthis hypothesis forms the basic criterion for ourtypology, the mode of financing will be the starting pointfor our recommendations for those policy-makers, whoare engaged in shaping the interface between scienceand industry.

4.1. Financing

Financial preconditions set by political representativesdetermine the dominant logic of steering for each indi-vidual institution. Variations in guidelines regardingbasic financing as well as funds obtained by publicresearch programs and industrial tasks contribute to opti-mal integration within the developers’ networks. Theway in which these three financial options should becombined depends upon which functions an institutionshould fulfil on the market for services in the inno-vation processes.

To a large extent, the “science” type is reliant uponbasic funding. “Rapid-Response” type institutions alsolive mainly from the basic financing, paid for educationand some consulting services relating to the region. Butthe sums that are spent on them are much more modestthan those for “science”, it generally involves one or twooffices and perhaps a small laboratory. With respect toadministration, “rapid-response” type institutions can besupported by services such as those offered by the Stein-beis Foundation for example. This includes being

relieved from the responsibility for bookkeeping, con-tracts and similar duties as well as from taking on theresponsibility to provide a guarantee. Above all, the lat-ter assists the “rapid-response” type by minimizing theirrisk in cooperating with universities and companies (seeKnodt, 1996).

In comparison, the “practical research” and “problemsolving” types often manage with little or no publicfunding. Their success lies in the fact that they arerelieved of teaching commitments and basic academicwork and can thus concentrate on dealing with their cus-tomers’ problems.

4.2. Suitable institutional involvement

When fixing structures, it is decisive that optimalresults in favor of industry will be achieved. The“science” and the “rapid-response” types profit in a dif-ferent way from close contact to the educational system.As university institutions, the former have opportunitiesthat they are able to use in a way which makes theminteresting partners for developers. The latter are finan-cially independent from canvassing for new business andcan thus be welcomed points of contact for small andmedium-sized companies with modest budgets.

In contrast, the two other types of institutions considertheir distance from the education system as a successfactor. Both are independent of the educational systemwith respect to time and personal guidelines and are ableto concentrate on dealing with practical industrial prob-lems. They can concentrate on the desires of their clientsand are not obliged to follow other obligations, such asfundamental research or teaching.

4.3. Guidelines for specific functional tasks

The institutions upon which we concentrate in ourstudy are active within a well covered service market.If they wish to become generally accepted in the market,it is essential that they clearly establish their profile. Thefour types described represent successful examples ofpossible positioning, almost like a unique selling prop-osition (USP) of a private firm. They cover relevant andcomplementary functions within the innovation process.Successful institutions consider themselves to be respon-sible for certain types of questions and a specific tar-get audience.

The “science” type primarily deal with subjects withan explicit link to academia and is more likely to addressacademically educated developers in large enterprises.“Practical research” institutions concentrate on funda-mental topics, which have a stronger link to practice andattract large and medium-sized companies. The “prob-lem solving” type is quick to help with simpler problemsof product and process optimization and tend to turn todevelopers without a college degree. “Rapid-Response”


type of institutions are primarily consulted by smallcompanies which would like to have an urgent, everyday problem solved as quickly as possible. For other top-ics, all successful institutions they describe themselves –which is just as important – as insufficiently competent:Based on their network, however, they are in a positionto pass on tasks to the right people.

A fundamental conclusion is that success is dependenton having a clear profile rather than in dealing with allpossible types of questions.

4.4. Policy for human resources policy

The success of each type of institution largely dependsupon the people who work there. The composition andexperience of employees plays a decisive role for thesuccessful perception of the turntable function. The insti-tute’s technical ability to solve problems must beensured by personnel.

Decisions relating to personnel are particularlyimportant for “science” and “rapid-response” typeswhose contacts to industry are strongly linked to individ-uals. For both types, this means that particular attentionmust be drawn to the applicant’s practical experienceand contacts before they are granted a teaching position.An additional opportunity offered to lecturers and pro-fessors is the possibility to spend a free (unpaid) sem-ester gaining experience in industry which could lead tothe creation of new contacts in the developers’ network.Flexible employment appears to be decisive for simplify-ing the contact to developers.

4.5. Design of research and development programs

Further scope for policy exists in the arrangement ofall instruments used to support R&D by programs. Forall program types that interest us, it is important thata lot of significance is attached to cooperation betweeninstitutions and industry. In this respect, importantexperience has particularly been gathered in the German“Verbundforschung” and the Swiss Commission forTechnology and Innovation (KTI). Such programsinvolve a huge potential to build long-term, problem-oriented cooperation between developers of various ori-gins. However, available studies all indicate that suchprograms tend to produce a “clientele” of successfulpartnerships which manage to be funded repeatedlywhile potential newcomers have to struggle for theremaining smaller portion of funds (c.f. Freiburghaus etal., 1990). Besides this consideration, joint research anddevelopment projects tend to generate a so-called “lock-out-effect” of non-participating third parties (c.f. Lu¨tz,1992). Therefore it seems necessary to design such pro-grams which intend to continuously integrate new part-ners into the communication and cooperation network.In this way it would be possible to select supporting con-

tributions for small initiation projects. They would bespecifically intended for cooperation partners who havenever worked together. An alternative way could be theso-called “piggyback” method: where project memberswould be obliged to integrate inexperienced partners intheir project in the context of program support.

5. Conclusion

The paper started with the presumption that devel-opers occupy one of the key positions in the develop-ment of new products. Therefore technology policyshould identify developers as a key actor or importanttarget group. It was argued that the support of the devel-opers professional networks should be a priority in tech-nology policy. Public authorities best implement thispolicy goal by designing framework conditions in sucha way that institutions become interfaces in the devel-opers’ network. Public bodies can only achieve thiswhen they establish themselves as competent contacts aswell as contributing to further development of the net-work of contacts. Institutions must be a turntable for theexchange between developers as well as a dynamicinfluence in the network. They have to support theexchange of experiences and opinions, act as a moder-ator and catalyst and make themselves available as thekey element of interaction. Successful institutions at theinterface between science and industry do not considerthemselves to be an institution for transfer but a net-work manager.

The study demonstrates that effective measures tostrengthen the interaction between science and industrydo not have to be sensational. The “silent route” to econ-omic success (Reich, 1989) leads to the systematic sup-port of communication between developers who dealwith similar questions in a different institutional context.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Swiss National ScienceFoundation, in particular the expert group responsiblefor the 33rd National Research Program “The Effective-ness of our Education Systems” as well as the BasicResearch Fund at the University of St. Gallen for finan-cially supporting this project.

References

Arvanitis, S., Hollenstein, H., Lenz, S., 1995. Innovationsaktivita¨tenin der Schweizer Industrie. Eine Analyse der Ergebnisse der Inno-vationserhebung 1993. Zu¨rich.

Asdonk, J., Bredeweg, U., Kowol U., 1991. Innovation als rekursiverProzess. Zur Theorie der Technikgenese am Beispiel der Pro-


duktionstechnik. In: Zeitschrift fu¨r Soziologie 20, Heft 4, S. 290-304, Stuttgart.

Asdonk, J., Bredeweg, U., Kowol, U., 1993. Innovation, Organisationund Facharbeit: Rahmenbedingungen und Perspektiven betrieb-licher Technikentwicklung, Bielefeld.

Balthasar, A., 1998. Vom Technologietransfer zum Netzwerkmanage-ment. In: Grundlagen zur institutionellen Gestaltung der Schnitts-telle zwischen Wissenschaft und Industrie. Ruegger, Chur/Zu¨rich.

Balthasar, A., Kno¨pfel, C., 1993. Die Technologiepolitik europaïscherStaaten und von Japan. In: Schweizerischer Wissenschaftsrat,Technologiepolitik PT 3/1993, Bern.

Beise, M., Licht, G., Spielkamp, A., 1995. Technologietransfer ankleine und mittlere Unternehmen. In: Analysen und Perspektivenfur Baden-Wu¨rttemberg. Nomos, Baden-Baden.

Bell, G., Callon, M., 1994. Techno-economic networks and scienceand technology policy. Science Technology Industry Review 14,59–117, Paris.

Constant, E.W., 1980. The Origins of Turbojet Revolution. Balti-more, London.

Constant, E.W., 1986. The social locus of technological practice: com-munity, system, or organization. In: Bijker, H., Pinch, T. (Eds.),The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directionsin the Sociology and History of Technology. MIT Press, Cam-bridge, MA.

De Bruijn, J.A., Ten Heuvelhof, E.F., 1997. Instruments for networkmanagement. In: Kickert, W.J.M., Klijn, E.-H. (Eds.), ManagingComplex Networks, Strategies for the Public Sector. Sage, London.

Dierkes, M., 1993. Organisationskultur und Leitbilder als Einflussfak-toren der Technikgenese: Thesen zur Strukturierung eines For-schungsfeldes. In: Dierkes, M. (Hrsg.), Die Technisierung und ihreFolgen: Zur Biographie eines Forschungsfeldes. Berlin.

Freiburghaus, D., Balthasar, A., Zimmermann, W., 1990. Evaluationder Forderung der praxisorientierten Forschung (KWF), Studiendes Bundesamtes fu¨r Konjunkturfragen Nr. 12, Bern.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Wartzman, S.,Trow, M., 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynam-ics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, Lon-don.

Grabher, G., 1993. The embedded firm. On the socioeconomics ofindustrial networks. Routledge, London/New-York.

Granovetter, M., 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journalof Sociology 78, 1360–1380, Chigago.

Hassink, R., 1996. Technology Transfer Agencies and Regional Econ-omic Development. European Planning Studies 4 (2), 167–184,Oxford.

Helmers, S., 1991. Perspectives on Links Between Professional Cultureand Technology Development: Evidence from the Field of MedicalTechnology. In: WZB-Paper FS II 91-107, Berlin.

Helmers, S., 1993. “Wir” und “Die” im Unternehmen — Innerorganis-atorische Prozesse bei der Technikentwicklung. In: Helmers, S.(Hrsg.), Ethnologie der Arbeitswelt: Beispiele aus europaïschenund aussereuropaïschen Feldern., S. 195-227. Bonn.

Herden, R., 1992. Technologieorientierte Aussenbeziehunger im bet-rieblichen Innovations Management. Heidel-berg, Physica-verlag.

Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., 1994. Innovationspotentiale und Innovationsprob-leme des Werkzeugmaschinenbaus. Zum Verha¨ltnis von Verwis-senschaftlichung und industrieller Praxis. In: WSI Mitteilungen2/1994, Koln.

Hofmann, J., 1993. Implizite Theorien in der Politik. Interpret-ationsprobleme regionaler Technologiepolitik. Westdeutscher Ver-lag, Opladen.

Kalkowski, P., Mickler, O., Manske, F., 1995. Produktinnovation imMaschinenbau: traditionelle Sta¨rken - neue Herausforderungen.Berlin.

Knodt, M., 1996. Regionales Regieren im europaïschen Mehrebenen-system. Ein interpretativer Vergleich zwischen Baden-Wu¨rttem-berg und Niedersachsen. Mannheim.

Lutz, S., 1992. Funktionsweise und Erfolgsbedingungen des Fo¨rderin-struments Verbundforschung, Dissertation, Essen.

Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 1982. An evolutionary theory of economicchange. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Onida, F., Malerba, F., 1989. R&D Cooperation Between Industry,Universities and Research Organizations in Europe: BackgroundReport. Technovation 9, 131–195, Amsterdam.

Reich, R.B., 1989. The quiet path to technological pre-eminence.Scientific American October, 19–25, New York.

Schweizerischer Bundesrat, 1997. Bericht des Bundesrates u¨ber dieUmsetzung der Technologiepolitik des Bundes, Bern.

Thierstein A., Wilhelm, B., 1997. Regionale Innovation durchEntwicklernetzwerke. Zwei Fallstudien u¨ber Entwickler und Tech-nikinstitutionen in Osterreich, SIASR-HSG, University of St.Gallen/Switzerland..

Williams, R., Edge, D., 1996. The social shaping of technology,.Research Policy 25, 865–899, Amsterdam.

Zundorf, L., 1994. Manager- und Expertennetzwerke in innovativenProblemverarbeitungsprozessen. In: Sydow, J., Windeler, A. (Eds.),Management interorganisationaler Beziehungen. WestdeutscherVerlag, Opladen, pp. 244–257.

Zundorf, L., Heitbrede, V., Kneissle, R.-J., 1993. Betriebsu¨bergrei-fende Problembewa¨ltigung in der mittelsta¨ndischen Industrie,Frankfurt/New York

Andreas Balthasar studied Economics and History at the University ofBern. He then became assistant at the Swiss Politics Research Center ofthe University of Bern. He spent two years from 1985 to 1987 in Cam-bridge, England, working on a research project. From 1988 to 1991, hewas a member of the Science and Politics Research Centre in Bern.

Andreas Balthasar has been a lecturer at the Institute for PoliticalScience of the University of Bern since 1987. Since 1991, he has beenresponsible, as external expert, for the evaluation of the action programEnergy 2000. He has also led several evaluations in the energy sector andconceptual studies (for instance: ideas for the creation of a Swiss EnergyAgency). He also advises the Federal Social Security Office on the evalu-ation of the Medical Insurance Law.

Since 1991, Andreas Balthasar has been at the head of INTERFACE,Institute for Policy Studies, in Lucerne. INTERFACE specialised for manyyears in the analysis of the implementation and evaluation of public poli-cies. The Institute conducts projects for administrations on federal, can-tonal and municipal levels. The main subjects of research are Energy,Social, Research and Technology Policies

Christoph Battig graduated from the University of Zurich in 1993 witha diploma in social geography. As a scientific collaborator, working forINTERFACE (Institute for Policy Studies, Lucerne) since 1994, he hasdealt mainly with environmental and technology policies. His research isfocused on the evaluation of policy programs as well as on the design ofmeasures to strengthen the implementation process.

On behalf of the Federal Office for Professional Education and Tech-nology, he worked on the implementation of microelectronic technologyin Swiss industry and the respective effects of the federal action programMICROSWISS. He also took part in studies, which analysed the trainingprograms and continuing education in microelectronics (1996/97) andtechnology transfer (1995/96). Further on, he was involved in project onbehalf of the Federal Office for Education and Science which evaluatedSwiss participation in the third and forth framework programmes forresearch of the European Union.

Within one of the projects of the Environment Priority Program of theSwiss National Fund, he is studying the possibility of applying the stra-tegies of network-management to environmental policies. He also workswith the IDHEAP (Institut des hautes e´tudes en administration publique)in Lausanne on the conception of a policy observation system of theenvironment.

Alain Thierstein , born 1957. 1978–1984: studies in economics, businessadministration and law at the University of St.Gallen, Switzerland; Mas-ters degree in economics. 1984–1985: scientific collaborator at the Univer-sity of St.Gallen. 1985–1987: doctoral scholarship by the Swiss NationalScience Foundation; visiting researcher at the “Fraunhofer Institute Sys-


tems and Innovation Research” (ISI) in Karlsruhe, Germany. Dissertationon R&D policy and innovation policy for small and medium enterprises.From 1988 to 1998 researcher at the “Swiss institute for research in inter-national economics, regional science and structural problems” (SIASR-HSG) at the University of St.Gallen. Since 1993 lecturer in regional eco-nomics and head of the regional science group at the SIASR institute.1997 member of the directorate of SIASR institute. Since July 1998, headof the regional science group at the “Institute for public services and tour-ism” (IDT-HSG) and director of IDT-HSG.

Areas of interest are regional development, sustainable regional devel-opment, innovation and technology policy, crossborder cooperation andpolicy evaluation.

Beate Wilhelm, Dipl.-Geographer; Studies of Geography at the Universityof Stuttgart. 1991–1994 research assistant at the Fraunhofer-Institute forProduction Engineering and Automation (FhI-IPA) in Stuttgart. Mainresearch topics have been “fractal structures of enterprises” and “cooperat-

ive sites for enterprises”. 1995–1998 research assistant at the Swiss Insti-tute for Research in International Economics, Regional Science and Struc-tural Problems’ (SIASR-HSG) at the University of St. Gallen; since 1998research assistant at the Institute for Public Services and Tourism (IDT-HSG) at the University of St. Gallen with main research topics as “regionalinnovation by networks of enigeers”, “science and technology parks andtheir contribution to regional development”, and “innovation and tech-nology policy in Switzerland”. Current research projects are: “regional andfinancial impacts of the university of St. Gallen” and “the contribution ofhigher educational institutions and the University of St. Gallen to spin-offsin the canton St. Gallen”. 1997–1999 Doctoral student at the University ofZurich; title of the dissertation is “from systemic failure in innovationprocesses towards reorganisation of structures in knowledge- and tech-nology transfer”.

Areas of interest and research topics are: innovation and technologypolicy; regional innovation policy; knowledge- and technology transfer;innovation systems; technology development; networking in regionaldevelopment.

Developers”: key actors of the innovation process. Types of developers and their contacts to...

Documents

Transcript of Developers”: key actors of the innovation process. Types of developers and their contacts to...