4.7 Article

Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations

Journal

RESEARCH POLICY
Volume 44, Issue 5, Pages 1133-1143

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.006

Keywords

Open data; Industrial R&D; Selective revealing; Boundary organization; University-industry relations; Open innovation; Research partnership

Categories

Funding

  1. UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) via an AIM Fellowship [RES-331-27-0063]
  2. ESRC [ES/G038082/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/G038082/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Science-intensive firms are experimenting with 'open data' initiatives, involving collaboration with academic scientists whereby all results are published with no restriction. Firms seeking to benefit from open data face two key challenges: revealing R&D problems may leak valuable information to competitors, and academic scientists may lack motivation to address problems posed by firms. We explore how firms overcome the challenges through an inductive study of the Structural Genomics Consortium. We find that the operation of the consortium as a boundary organization provided two core mechanisms to address the above challenges. First, through mediated revealing, the boundary organization allowed firms to disclose R&D problems while minimizing adverse competitiye consequences. Second, by enabling multiple goals the boundary Organization increased the attractiveness of industry-informed agendas for academic scientists. We work our results into a grounded model of boundary organizations as a vehicle for open data initiatives. Our study contributes to research on public-private research partnerships, knowledge revealing and boundary organizations. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available