Academic-industry links and

innovation: questioning the

science park model*
Paul Quintas
Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Mantell Building, Falmer, Brighton
RN1 9RF (UK)

David Wield and Doreen Massey

The Open Universi~, Walton Ha4 ~iiton Keynes MK7 6AA (UK)

Abstract

Considerable resourcesare being devoted to science parks as policy instruments aimed at promoting
research-based industrial and innovative activity. The phenomenon, which began in the US and Europe,
is now attracting interest throughout the world, including Eastern Eumpe, South America, and Aji-ica.
The concept of linkage between commercial enterprises and academic research is central to the US and
UK science park model. Drawing on empirical research completed in the UK, the paper assesses the
potential and actual role of science parks in linking academic research with industrial activity. These
findings show that current UK expedience does not demonstrate high levels of
such linkages. Further,
analysis of the empi~.cal and theoretical basis for science parks, drawing on current und~standing of the
innovation process and the relationship between academic research and industrial a~tivi~, suggests that
the science park model itseff is probIematic.

1. Introduction researchers might commercialise their outputs, or

Science parks are, in the simplest terms. property
developments which aim to support research-
based commercial activity. Universities and other
higher education establishments (HEI) are seen as
repositories of scientific expertise, research, and
advanced technologies. The science park is
conceived as a mechanism by which academic
*This paperoriginates from research completed at theTechnology Policy
Group at The Open University. The research was funded hy the Joint
Committee of the UK SERC/ESRC and The Open University.
where firms might locate in order to access
academic expertise and research results. At the
core of the science park concept lies the idea that
scientific knowledge leads in some linear pro-
gression to technological innovation. In the UK,
science parks have received signi~~ant levels of
investment, mainly from the public sector. The
received view is that the country has traditionally
been successful at the level of basic science but has
not capitalised on this by commercialising the
fruits of research. Ways must be found, the
argument follows. to forge better links between

Technovation Volume 12 No 3 0166-4972/92/$05.00 0 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd 16 1

P. Quintas et al.
academic research and industry, and to orientate
HEIs more closely to the needs of industry.
It is no coincidence that the 1980s UK science
parks building boom, during which 36 parks were
established, followed a massive cutback in govern-
ment financial support for the universities in 1981.
Several universities received funding cuts of
around 30%. In addition to reduced university
funding, government support for scientific research
through the Research Councils has been widely
condemned as inadequate, from academia itself to
the House of Lords. Research projects have been
forced to close down, and there has been a
resurgence of concern over the loss of researchers
to other countries - the ‘brain drain’ phenomenon.
It is thus heavily ironic that the growth ofinterest in
science parks and their receipt of funds from a
variety of public sources coincided with a period of
onslaught by central government amounting to
financial restrictions which threatened the survival
of much university research, undermining the very
strengths which science parks sought to exploit.
At the same time, there has been concern by the
UK government that UK industry devotes fewer
resources to R&D than do its overseas competitors.
There have also been shortages of skilled personnel
in many new-technolo~ based fields. With little
prospect of increasing the overall amount of R&D
being done, science parks are seen as one means of
facilitating the transfer of academic research
outputs to industry. Science parks thus represent
an infrastructural mechanism to bridge the gap
between academia and industry. With the allocation
of UK R&D resources inevitably a zero-sum game,
science parks offer the promise of something for
almost nothing.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the UK
science park phenomenon as a policy mechanism
aimed at facilitating academic-indust~ links and
thereby promoting innovative commercial activity.
Some questions are raised about the extent and
nature of research links, and the basis for the
science park strategy as a means to achieve linkage.
Drawing on empirical evidence and current
conceptual understanding of technological inno-
vation processes at the level of the firm, the paper
162
seeks to explain the apparent gap between the
science park concept of research linkage and the
reality found on UK parks.
2. Background: the UK science park
phenomenon
‘High-tech’ property development was a major
feature of 1980s Britain, although the geographic
spread of investment was far from even. The
decade saw the construction of hundreds of
property developments with names like ‘business
park’, ‘technology park’, and ‘enterprise park’.
Because most of these do not have formal links
with academic insti~tions, they are not science
parks as defined here. In order, therefore, to
provide definitional clarity it is helpful to use the
criteria established by the UK Science Park
Association (UKSPA) for eligibility to join that
organisation [I]:
“The Science Park is a properry based initiative
which:
has formal operational links with a university or
other higher ed~ca~.onal or research insti~tion:
is designed to encourage the fo~ation and
growth of knowledge based busine~es and other
organisations normally resident on site:
has a management funcrion which is actively
engaged in the transfer of technology and
business skills to the organisations on site. ”
At the end of 1988 UKSPA recorded 38 science
parks which conformed to this definition, with one
more under construction, and a further eighteen at
the planning stage.’ More recently, UKSPA has
relaxed its academic link criterion to include parks
with a major research centre, such as Billingham,
which has strong links to ICI. We will concentrate
here on the 38 science parks which do have a
formal academic link. Table 1 shows the uneven
UK science park chronology. with two parks open
in 1972. a gap of ten years, and then a building
boom in the 1980s.
Technovation Volume 12 No 3
 Academic-industry links and innovation

TABLE I UK science parks by year of opening” TABLE 2 Science parks ranked by tenant numbers (1986-1988)”

UK parks - year of opening No. of parks No. of tenants % change 1986-88

started in year
1986 1988
1972 Cambridge. Heriot-Watt
Cambridge 68 69 I
1982 Merseyside
Aston 42 60 43
1983 Aston. Bradford. Leeds. Glasgow Southbank 36 50 39
Warwick 35 47 34
1984 East Anglia. Hull. Loughborough.
surrey IO 43 330
Manchester. Nottingham. Surrey.
Bradford 26 33 27
St Andrew Southampton. Warwick
Heriot-Watt 23 32 39
1985 Aberystwyth. Clwyd. Durham. South Bank. ShetXeld - 32 -
Sussex St. Johns (Camb - 31 -
Billingham - 30 -
1986 Antrim. Birmingham. Bolton. Brunei. Kent. 7
Brunei 8 25 213
Stirling. Swansea
Durham 5 25 400
1987 Cardiff. Keele. St Johns (Cambridge). 4 Nottingham I4 22 57
Bangor Glasgow 15 21 40
Southampton I5 21 40
1988 Sheflield. Aberdeen. Sunderland. 6
Swansea 6 20 230
Billingham. Salford. Wrexham
Clwyd 6 20 230
Total 38 Salford - I8 -
Manchester II I7 55
“Source: Massey et al. 121from UKSPA data. Stirling 5 I7 240
Botton IO I6 60
Loughborough 17 I6 -6
Merseyside I2 I5 25
Cardiff - I5 -
The timing of the UK science parks boom has
Birmingham 9 I5 67
two principal causes. First, as noted above, the Hull I2 I4 I7
boom in science parks follows the swinging cuts in Sussex - I4 -
university funding in 1981. Universities found Aberystwyth 6 IO 67
Keele - IO -
themselves under pressure to attract alternative Sunderland - 9 -
sources of funding, and also to increase their Leeds II 8 -27
outwardly perceived ‘relevance’ to industry and Antrim 2 6 200
Aberdeen - 6 -
commerce, to lessen the possibility of further cuts. Wrexham - 5 -
Second, following the severe recession of 1979-81 Kent 2 5 I50
and the resultant high levels of unemployment, Bangor I 5 400
St. Andrews 2 4 IO0
local government and regional development East Anglia 3 I -67
agencies sought to promote industrial resurgence
and create job opportunities, using a range of “Source: Massey et al. [2] from UKSPA data.

policy initiatives, of which science parks became

one of the most significant.
Table 2 shows the comparative size of UK parks
in terms of numbers of tenants, with the years 1986
and 1988 compared. Table 3 provides detail of
employment levels in all UK science parks from
1985-90. This shows that total employment in 1990
was below 15 000, and that the average park tenant
is a very small enterprise. However, aggregate data
conceal significant differences between parks and
regions. Employment is dominated by a few large
parks, the four largest (Cambridge, Surrey, Aston
and Warwick) having 47% of all park employment
in 1990. In 1990, the average employment per
tenant in the south of England was 20.0, in the rest
of the UK it was 9.8. Most employment growth can
be accounted for by new tenants locating on the
parks rather than by employment growth in
existing park enterprises.
By late 1990,1f293 million had been invested in

Technovation Volume 12 No 3 163

P. Quintas et al.
TABLE 3 Science park tenants and employment
1985
No. of parks 21
No. of tenants 301
Total no. employed 3800
Average employment per tenant 12.6
BSource: Massey et al. 121from UKSPA data.
land and buildings for UK science parks. Of this
investment. 59% came from public sources, made
up of 9% from local government, 29% from
academic insti~tions, and 21% from regional
development agencies. Tenant enterprises invested
24% of the total in land and buildings, and other
private sector finance accounted for 16% of the
total [2]. There is a clear regional divide in science
park funding, with parks in the south east of
England being largely privately funded, and
virtually all parks elsewhere being publicly
supported, with private investment the exception.”
In the initial phase of the 1980s science park
boom, many park sponsors had only vague ideas of
what it was they were supposing, and what it might
achieve. Some extravagant claims were made
concerning employment creation prospects and
growth potential. Analysis of statements and
documentation produced by funding and managing
bodies concerning the aims for science parks
reveals a wide spread of objectives. The most often
mentioned reasons were:
facilitation of R&D links and technology transfer
between the academic institution and the park
tenants;
the fo~ation, attraction and growth of new
firms;
the promotion of ‘high technology’,, ‘leading
edge technology*, or R&D-based technological
activity:
employment creation:
regeneration of the local economy;
a commercial return on investment.
More recently there has been less emphasis on
employment creation, at least in the short term. In
164
(1985-199O)a
1986 1987 1988 1990
28 33 38 39
412 642 807 1012
5300 7600 10540 14 708
12.9 11.8 13.1 14.5
this paper we concentrate on the first of these
aims - the facilitation of R&D links between the
academic institution and the park tenants.
3. Links between UK science parks
and academic institutions
The definition of science parks being used here
focusses on developments which have a host
academic institution that is formally associated
with the park. Most ofthe HEIs are universities, but
several polytechnics are also involved, and in the
case of Cambridge, two individual colleges (Trinity
and St Johns) have launched their own parks. In
most cases the academic institu~on was instru-
mental in instigating the science park, but has not
provided financial investment to the science park
project. In some cases they have supplied land
and/or buildings. Many parks are located on or
adjacent to the host academic institution, although
several are some miles distant. In all cases the main
contribution of the academic institution has been
their presence and involvement, which sets the
science park site apart from other property initia-
tives, and helps to raise rental values. Of 183
science park firms surveyed in 1986,74% said that
the prestige or image of the site was a major factor
in their choice of park location 131.
The UKSPA criteria quoted above stipulate that
the science park should have formal links with an
academic institution. It does not, however, discuss
the nature of the links between the academic
institution and the tenant organisations located on
the park. Analysis of research links is possible only
at the level of the firm involved. There are two
Technovation Volume 12 No 3

principal forms of academic-science park link at
the level of the indi~dual park enterprise:
l the establishment of ‘spin-off firms, formed by
academic staff taking research out of the
laboratory and onto the science park, starting
their own commercial enterprise;
o the occurrence of research links facilitating
technology and knowledge transfers.
The following section discusses each of these in
turn.
3.1. Academic ‘spin-offs’
The idea of the new-start firm driven by the
entrepreneurial spirit of the risk-taking individual
was at the heart of many policy initiatives of the
1980s in Europe and the US. References to new-
start ‘high-tech’ firms, often calling on archetypal
examples such as Hewlett Packard and Apple
Computer, pervade the science parks rhetoric. The
hope was that academic researchers would take
their ideas onto the science park and establish new
firms which would launch high-tech products, thus
providing a UK equivalent of Hewlett Packard, a
phenomenon which has thus far eluded existing
policy mechanisms. It is, needless to say, too early
for any of the UK science park firms to have grown
to national, let alone intemational stature. As
noted above, firms remain small and employment
levels low. Final evaluation of the success of
science parks in growing significant corporations
will only be possible when 15 or 20 years have
elapsed. Nevertheless, it is possible at this stage to
anaiyse the extent to which UK parks have
supported new firm formation and academic spin-
offs, as the model demands.
Academic spin-offs are a subset of the broader
dbjective of many science parks - the formation
of new-start firms. The location of new-start firms
of all types on science parks is less common than
might be expected. A national science park survey
conducted by UKSPA in 1985 showed that 30% of
the 300 establishments then located on science
parks were new start companies; thus 70% were
T~hnovation Volume 12 No 3
Academic-industry iinks and innovation
re-located existing firms, or subsidiaries of multi-
site establishments [4]. Research at The Open
University revealed that in 1986 49 out of 185
science park establishments (26%) were inde-
pendent start-up firms [2]; 65% were re-located
from other sites, and 9% were new-start but non-
independent. The level of new firm fo~ation is
therefore significant, but the majority of enter-
prises on science parks are relocated from else-
where, or are subsidiaries.
Concentrating on academic spin-off enterprises,
the national 1986 survey of 183 science park firms
found that 17% were university spin-offs? It was
mentioned by 16% that their firm had been
founded by an individual who had made the
transition from academia to the park. Of inde-
pendent science park firms, only 25% had a
founding member from the host academic insti-
tution 121.
The incidence of start-up and academic spin-off
firms varies considerably from park to park, as
does the nature of these establishments. On the
largest UK park, Cambridge, only 21% of firms
present in 1986 were independent firms with no
previous address, and by 1990 this propo~ion had
dropped to under 14%. In contrast, 56% of firms on
Aston Science Park in Birmingham were new start
independent firms [2]. In terms of academic spin-
off firms, Cambridge is host to Laser-Scan and
several other companies founded by academic
staff, but as indicated by its low overall level of new
start firms, Cambridge has a low percentage of
academic spin-off enterprises. This is partly
explained by the relatively high cost of rental levels
on Cambridge Science Park. With rents at around
four times the level available on sites ten miles
outside of’ Cambridge (in 1986). most start-up
companies could not afford to locate on the park.
New tenants are therefore mostly established firms
or subsidiaries of larger organisations, and indeed
Cambridge has succeeded in attracting many
branches of multinational colorations.
In contrast to Cambridge Science Park, Aston
Science Park has the highest percentage of new
start companies of all UK parks, and several of
these are academic spin-offs. A major factor
165
P. Quintas et al.
encouraging new start firms at Aston is the
availability of venture capital from the parks
managing company, Birmingham Technology
Limited (BTL). This capital fund, jointly financed
by Birmingham City Council and Lloyds Bank, is
used to support firms that locate on the park on an
equity investment and loan basis. The availability
of venture capital from BTL played a major role in
the establishment of many businesses, and in
providing subsequent growth capital. Another
factor at Aston has ironically been the cuts made to
a university department following the 1981 govem-
ment reduction in university funding. This depart-
ment had close links with industry and contracts
with government organisations. Following the
cuts, some academics left the university to set up
commercial enterprises. Four Aston Science Park
firms thus owe their origins to pre-existing research
contracts which the university department formerly
undertook.
Another form of academic spin-off are establish-
ments which remain part of the university, but are
located on the science park. Some of these, such as
Bradford and Swansea Universities’ microelec-
tronics laboratories, are simply part of university
departments. Others operate as semi-autonomous
enterprises. Heriot-Watt Research Park hosts five
Technology Transfer Institutes which are adminis-
tratively part of university departments, their staff
being employed on academic salaries. These units
are each aimed at providing technical expertise in
specific sectors, including computing, the oil
industry and medical lasers. They provide consult-
ancy services to industry and operate as R&D
contractors, designing products for clients. This
type of establishment offers an effective means of
transferring academic expertise to industry, but it is
not clear that it offers a two-way research linkage.
Additionally, technology transfer units.do not fit
the entrepreneurial mould of the ‘start-up’ enter-
prise, since they have no independence from their
universities.
Although we have shown that significant spin-
offs have occurred, it is clear that these are the
exception rather than the rule amongst UK science
park occupants. Perhaps too great an emphasis has
166
been placed on university spin-offs and the
‘academic enterpreneui in the science park
mythology. In the opinion of the first director of
London’s South Bank Technopark, “If you look at
Science Parks as a whole you don’t find that a lot of
the companies have been started by academics” [S].
Indeed, it is clear from analysis of the situation in
US science parks (where the model and the
mythology originates), that the role of ‘spin-offs’
has been exaggerated.
The often quoted evidence from Route 128
(Boston) emphasised the importance of academic
spin-off firms from MIT [6]. However, this study
included in its definition of academic spin-offs
people who had left MIT up to ten years before
starting up their business (with an average time lag
of 2.5 years). The companies in which these
individuals spent the intervening period were
arguably more significant as progenitors. In a
study of 243 ‘high technology’ firms which started
up in the Palo Alto area (Silicon Valley) of
Northern California in the 1960s only eight
founders of these firms came directly from Stanford
University [7]. In Massachusetts, as in California’s
‘silicon valley’, the growth of ‘high technology’
industry has been more related to the presence of
large electronics and aerospace corporations (and
DOD contracts) than it has to the local universities.
Oakey [8] has shown that research links between
firms and universities are not particularly
important in California. A major US National
Science Foundation report on university-industry
relationships found in 1982 that of 14 universities
which owned or were associated with industrial
parks, only four parks were considered useful in
stimulating technology transfer. Moreover, “even
in these cases, the presence of the park, in and of
itself, did not necessarily strengthen university-
industry research programs.” 191.We may conclude
that(i) academic spin-offs are less common in UK
science parks than might be expected given their
centrality to science park ethos; and (ii) the
imported model from the US upon which the
academic spin-off idea is based is less than
substantiated by the evidence.
In addition, there is some question over the
Technovation Volume 12 No 3

relative performance of academic start-up firms
when compared with other similar establishments.
Monck et al. (31 found that businesses established
by academics on science parks performed less well
in terms of employment growth than did the other
firms located on the parks. This was true for all
ages of firms, but most pronounced for firms
between two and five years old. The director of the
South Bank Technopark says that where academics
have started their own businesses on parks “their
lack of commercial expertise means they are not
the fastest growers” [5]. Nick Pasricha, accountants
Arthur Young’s partner in charge of small
businesses, says “there are better ways of exploiting
university research than getting academics to go
into business. Academics are not businessmen and
perhaps we shouldn’t try to make them” [S]. A
representative of the Scottish Development Agency
(SDA), which has invested heavily in several
science parks, said plainly “no way will we back an
academic.” Academics are thought to be a poor risk
as business people, and the SDA prefers to put
someone with managerial experience in control of
firms in which it invests, often making the
academic the firm’s technical manager. This is not
to denigrate the abilities of academic researchers
or the value oftheir academic research. Indeed, it is
the apparent value of that research which makes
the whole science park phenomenon possible. It
does, however, raise questions about the role of
academic research in industrial activity, to which
we return below.
3.2. Research links between science park
firms and academia
The accessing of academic knowledge and
expertise by businesses located on site is a key
principle of science parks. In principal, firms
which locate (or re-locate) on the park are expected
to build contacts with the host HE1 and benefit
from knowledge and expertise transfers, and the
use of academic resources. In this way small firms
which cannot afford to employ full time research
expertise in specific areas, or cannot justify the cost
Technovation Volume 12 No 3
Academic-industry links and innovation
of purchasing expensive scientific equipment, can
access these within the host academic institution.
The proximity to the academic institution is
implicitly assumed to provide an advantage
regarding the process of accessing and transferring
technology, knowledge and skills. This process,
and the data presented here, applies to academic
spin-off firms as well as to all other establishments
located on science parks.
Potentially, research links may take many
forms, from formal contracts for research to more
informal contacts and the transfer of personnel
between academia and industry. The latter point
emphasises the fact that much technological
knowledge and skills are people-embodied tacit
knowledge which is not easily codified and
transferred other than via the movement of
personnel. Table 4 shows the range of links
between science park firms and host academic
institutions, derived from empirical research in
1986. The right hand three columns present
comparable data for a control group of 101 firms
located off science parks, selected to be similar size,
age and sector as science park firms. The significant
finding here is that formal research links between
academic institutions and science park establish-
ments were no more evident than similar links with
firms located off-park. The incidence of sponsor-
ship of research or trials, and testing and analysis
were similar in the case of park and non-park
lirms. In the key area of people transfer, the
employment of academics, student projects, and
graduate employment were remarkably similar for
science park firms and the off-park control group,
with training and teaching being mentioned by
more off-park firms. However, more science park
firms mentioned ‘informal contacts’ and the use of
academic facilities such as computers and libraries.
In-depth interviews with science park firms in
1986 suggested that overall, the majority of firms
had no research contact with the university.
Research links occurred most often in firms that
already had such links before locating on the park,
but in many cases these links tended to decrease
over time after the initial knowledge and technology
transfers had occurred. Firms which moved onto
167
P. Quintas et al.

TABLE 4 Links with the local academic institutional h

Science Parks Off-park

South North All South North All

Informal contact 67 57 60 42 47 45
Employment of academics 24 30 28 30 26 28
Sponsor research/trials I9 12 I4 I9 I2 15
Access to equipment 35 40 38 21 36 30
Test/analysis in HEI 17 10 12 7 I7 I3
Student projects 17 25 22 I4 31 24
Graduate employment 22 33 30 28 31 30
Training by HE1 2 5 4 5 9 7
Teaching programme 7 5 5 5 I4 IO
Other formal links 4 - I - - -

Use offacilities.
Computer II 22 I9 9 5
Library 44 49 48 I6 21
Recreation 15 36 30 I4 2
Conferences II I7 I5 7 I6
Dining I5 25 22 9 3
Audiovisual 9 IO IO 5 3
Other 4 6 5 2 3
University as customer 7 18 I5 12 I9 I6
No response I9 I5 30 22 26
Number of lirms 54 129 I83 43 58 IO1

aFigures are percentage of fums mentioning each factor as being one ofthree most important
links with the HEI. The final row shows the total number of respondent firms. Firms
mentioned more than one factor. so percentages sum to over 100.
‘Source: Massey et al. 121.

the park with no previous academic links found it
difficult to form them. One Cambridge academic
who had formed a company on the science park
said “it is easier to ‘tap out’ (from the university to
the park) than to ‘tap in’ (from the park) to the
university, but overall there is a low level of park-
university links.” Several interviewees could see no
reason to attempt to make research links with the
HEI, since there was no perceived need for
research inputs to the firm’s activities. In other
cases there was no complementarity between the
HEI’s areas of research and the firm’s requirements.
Much ofthis evidence relates to formal links, but
as reflected in Table 4, informal links are the most
frequently mentioned. The nature and importance
of these are difficult to evaluate, although many
outside commentators on the science park phenom-
enon emphasise their key function. The high level
of informal links amongst off-park firms is notable,
however, given the importance placed on science
parks proximity to the host academic institution.
Dr. Bill Bolton, who is both Cambridge academic
and entrepreneur, states of Cambridge Science
Park “in some respects the direct connection with
the university is surprisingly limited and its
immense resources have not yet been harnessed to
the full by the local high-tech community” [IO].
Our evidence from other UK parks suggests that
the informal networks elsewhere are of even less
significance.
In part, the use of academic research facilities is
a function of what science park firms actually do
on site. Table 5 shows the principal sectors in
which science park establishments operate, clearly
revealing the dominance of information technology
(IT) related
\ activity.

168 Technovation Volume 12 No 3

 Academic-industry links and innovation

TABLE 5 Main sectors of science park establishmentsa establishments were found to be marketing outlets
Activities %
for multinational and other multi-site companies.
Others market bought-in hardware and software
Hardware and systems 26 with minimal modification by the science park
Software 15
Microelectronics IO
firm. Many company and park management
Instrumentation 3 interviewees were candid about the technological
Automation 4 activity of their firms. Many acknowledged that
Electrical equipment 1
Medical 3
they had no need for accessing academic research
Pharmaceutical 3 because they undertook no R&D on site.
Fine chemicals I The research concluded that there was a high
Biotechnology 3
Environmental 4
degree of variation in the technological level of
Mechanical I science park firms. A significant number are
Design and development 4 leading edge companies undertaking R&D and
Analysis and testing 14
Other technical services 3
design. Others are less sophisticated, undertaking
Financial and business services 5 little or no R&D, and essentially are involved in
Other 1 downstream commercial activities.
“Source: Massey et al. (21.
A follow-up study to the 1986 survey in 1990
found no increase in substantive research links. Of
those links which had increased, only student
project work was concerned with research; other
Table 6 shows the main on-site activities of
increases were in use of recreational and other
science park establishments, compared with the
facilities. The study also found no increase in
sample of off-park firms. There is inevitably some
informal links [ 111.
overlap between these categories (e.g. software and
The evidence presented here suggests that
design/development). The most surprising factor
research linkages are not significantly greater for
in the table is the high level of service and repair,
science park located firms than similar firms
marketing and sales, and warehousing, as principal
located elsewhere. This raises questions concerning
activities. This is consistent with in-depth research
the underlying principles of the science park
interviews undertaken by the authors in UK
phenomenon, including the need for firms to be
science parks. A surprisingly high number of
physically located on a science parks site close to
an academic institution, and the compatibility
TABLE 6 Principal on-site activities of establishments”
between firms’ research needs and the outputs of
academic research activity. The following section
Science-park Off-park discusses these issues in the light of the techno-
establishments (%) establishments (%) logical innovation literature and current under-
Manufacture 14 27 standing of the academia-industry research inter-
Production/design 6 6 face.
Software 4 1
Design/development 21 14
Research 6 5
Analysis 5 7 4. Some explanations
Consultancy 5 5
Training 4 2
Servicing/repair II II The empirical results presented above are
Marketing/sales 8 6 perhaps less than surprising when the current
Warehousing I2 IO
understanding of how firms maintain and increase
Others 5 6
their knowledge bases and develop technological
“Source: Massey et al. 121. competences is taken into account. The evidence

Technovation Volume 12 No 3 169

P. Quintas et al.
suggests that firms need highly specific knowledge
in order to solve their problems; university
knowledge outputs may be either too general, or
too theoretical and fundamental and thus too long-
term to be easily usable. Basic scientific research
may take decades to transfer to technological
developments and become incorporated into
marketable products. The different nature of
academic research and the R&D needs of business
is emphasised by Pavitt [12]:
“‘In universities, basic research seeks general-
isations based on a restricted number of variables,
and results in publications and reproducible
experiments. In business, a combination of
research and (more importantly) development,
testing, production engineering and operating
experience accumulates knowledge on all the
critical operating variables of an artifact, and
result in knowledge that is not only speciJc. but
partly tacit (uncodijiable) and therefore dificult
and costly to reproduce, ”
The knowledge employed in business is thus
firm-specific and cumulative. The cost of assimi-
lating knowledge and technologies from outside a
firm in order to incorporate them is very high; the
concept of academic research as a pool of free
knowledge which can be costlessly tapped is not
sustainable [ 121. Corporate technological com-
petences are built over many years through R&D
and learning-by-doing processes, and thus often
involve tacit skills which are not transferable.
Business units also operate under commercial
pressures and timescales and require quick
solutions to immediate problems. These are highly
specific problem-solving tasks with which the local
academic institution is unlikely to be equipped to
deal. In general, academic research is oriented
more towards basic research, which is what the
research councils fund (and most firms do not).
rather than applied research. Science park firms,
being generally very small and particularly sensitive
to commercial pressures, are not in a position to
undertake long-term or even medium-term R&D.
The problem is thus two-edged; academic basic
research is too long-term for these small firms,
170
whilst academia is not equipped to meet the
requirement for immediate problem-solving
activities which commercial pressures demand.
This view is borne out by the evidence from park
firms and park management. In-migrant firms
with no previous contact with the host HEI find it
very difficult to ‘tap in’ to the university for relevant
knowledge and R&D support. HEI knowledge is
often thought to be too general, and too far
removed from current practice, to be relevant. Park
firms may have no research links with host HEI
whilst at the same time having ongoing research
links with HEIs located hundreds of miles away.
Such links will be targeted on their specific needs
and will have been developed over a long period.
They are not dependent on close geographical
proximity between firm and HEI.
What underlies these apparent mismatches
between academic research outputs and the R&D
needs of (generally very small) science park
companies? The model of technological develop-
ment which lies at the core of the science park
phenomenon is essentially a linear model. This is
based on the idea that scientific activity and
scientific breakthroughs are performed in academic
laboratories in isolation from industrial activity.
Basic research leads to applied (or ‘mission
oriented’) research, which in turn leads to experi-
mental development, then product development,
and thence to production. Figure 1 illustrates such
a linear model. This suggests that the outputs from
basic research provide a knowledge base which
can be drawn upon by bodies undertaking applied
research and experimental development. Much
attention has been focussed on two crucial policy
issues which emerge from the linear model: how to
maintain the supply of scientific ideas and
knowledge (when it is accepted that market
mechanisms fail to ensure that adequate research
will be undertaken); and how to more effectively
link together the various stages of the innovation
process. The low level of industrial R&D in the UK
places great reliance on academic research as the
key source of research outputs. The familiar cry in
the UK has been that the country is good at basic
science, but poor at commercialising its results.
Technovation Volume 12 No 3

1 2
\ \
BASSC -\ APPLIED \ EXPERIMENTAL \
RESEARCH / RESEARCH f DE~LOPMENT
I///
Fig. I. A linear model of innovation.
Science parks are conceived as mechanisms
which will aid the process of linking academic
science to markets. However, in the UK they are
highly focussed in terms of the linear model. In
almost all cases, UK science parks have restrictions
on manufacturing activities. Large scale production
is inherently conceived of as something that
happens elsewhere. Park activities are limited to
‘clean’ processes and functions, ma~ufac~~ng
being discouraged by such expediences as building
entrances and access roads too small for large
vehicles. Thus, in theory at least, science park
enterprises are intended to fultil roles within the
second and third stages of the linear model. They
may stretch into stage four in the case of ‘clean’
production activity like computer software.
The mapping of UK science parks onto the
linear model of innovation reveals the particular
historical relationship between research, develop-
ment and production which is perhaps unique to
the UK Compared with the US and Germany, the
UK was slow to evolve large, vertically integrated
corporations with corporate R&D facilities. US,
German, and more recently, Japanese corporations
have been more successful than most of their UK
counterparts in linking research with production
within their integrated structures. Within such
integrated companies, the linear model holds little
currency; in Japan much R&D takes place on the
production floor, and workers are rotated through
production, R&D and other functional areas in
order to ensure the transfer of skills and technology
[13j. The UK has suffered from a peculiarly linear
research, development and production system,
which has become entrenched in institutions,
culture and management attitudes. The low status
of engineers in the UK and management’s distaste
for the shop floor contrasts with German and
Technovation Volume 12 No 3
A&ademjc-indust~ links and jnn~vat~on
3 4 5
\ \
INITIAL \ DIFFUSION
/ PRODUCTION /
Japanese high status for engineers, and closer links
between management and production processes.
The UKconcept of science parks as enclaves where
‘clean’ activities including (but by no means
exclusively) R&D are carried out in isolation from
manufacture and production activities is not
mirrored in the US parks which tend to be much
larger, and support manufac~~ng as well as R&D.
We therefore argue that in the UK, science parks
may be seen as a manifestation of the linear model
of R&D and technological innovation. There is
now a large body of evidence to confirm that the
linear model does not adequately describe these
processes in the more successful economies. Far
more complex models involving feedback loops
and a process of non-sequential interaction between
the functional elements of research, marketing,
development, design, production engineering,
production, and so on have been found to more
accurately reflect the successful innovation process.
5. Conclusions
Presaging the UK science parks boom of the
early 1980s Professor Peter Hall wrote in 1981 [ 141:
‘.
. . . the innovations of thefifth Kondratiefl will
come directly from fundamental research
advances - so a university link is essential.
The spatial ~rnp~i~~tions must be clear. The new
industries are not going to be born in Port Talbot
or in Consett. They might just be born again in
Glasgow and Manchester and Birmingham. or in
any other British city with a prestigious uni-
versity -provided such a research centre were
linked directly with an enterprisezoneof the tight
171
P. Quintas et al.

kind, one that systematically encouraged spin off The military and NASA (North American Space
industry of the Silicon Valley variety. ” Administration) funding for R&D, and their
provision of large markets for the (necessarily
Many policy makers in local government, regional
expensive) output of the emergent semiconductor
development agencies and academic institutions
industry of the 1950s and 196Os, is unlikely to be
felt much the same in the dark days of the 1979-8 1
reproduced in the UK or anywhere else in the
UK recession and the period of sustained high
1990s.
unemployment which followed it. Many saw ‘high-
Science parks in the UK are clearly different
tech growth as the panacea, with science parks the
from the original US model, even allowing for the
preferred policy mechanism. As is implied by the
fact that the received wisdom from the US
reference to Port Talbot and Consett (towns built
experience does not accurately reflect the reality.
on steel and heavy engineering) in Professor Hall’s
Although UK science parks vary considerably,
quotation, ‘high-tech development was usually set
with some, for example, attempting to relate more
up as an alternative to manufacturing and ‘dirty’
strongly to their local economies than others, all
production activities, rather than as new rounds of
are constrained to some extent by the linear model.
investment targeted on upgrading the industrial
It is necessary to question the linearity which
base.
underlies UK thinking in relation to R&D and
This paper has argued that the separation of
technological innovation. Once the linear model is
R&D from production and its location on an
abandoned, a number of possible alternatives
exclusive science park site is consistent with a
emerge, all of which involve concurrent multiple
linear model of innovation, which is unsound.
interactions between the functional elements which
Further, the empirical research findings presented
make up the innovation process.
here suggest that the extent of research links and
The relationship between academic research
personnel flows between the host academic insti-
and industrial R&D and innovation is, on the
tution and the science park firms appear to be no
evidence presented here, unlikely to be affected
different from the academic links of similar firms
either negatively or positively by the UK science
located on off-park sites. Moreover, the number of
park phenomenon. The research findings from UK
academic spin-off firms is low, and there are
science parks, together with the discussion of
questions concerning the viability of the academic
current understanding of the innovation process,
entrepreneur model.
suggests that the science park concept is funda-
Writing in 1986, Professor Hall and his co-
mentally flawed in its premise that universities and
authors reviewed ‘high-tech’ growth in the US, and
polytechnics are reservoirs of knowledge to be
came to rather different conclusions from his 1981
tapped merely by siting property developments
article quoted above [ 151:
nearby. That academic researchers and industry
,I
. . . one of the most cherished myths of high can work successfully together, and that significant
tech policy - that a strong research university is transfers of knowledge and expertise can be
the key to high tech growth - seems to be achieved, is borne out by the many examples of
without empiricalfoundation. We are inclined to technology transfer facilitated by university-
think that the explanation lies in the importance industry liaison offices, and the success (in R&D
of the defence variable: what was earlier thought terms) of collaborative R&D programmes such as
to represent the importance of @ndamental the UK Alvey Programme and the EC ESPRIT
research. as in the growth of high tech along Programme. Alvey and ESPRIT focussed on joint
highway 128 around Harvard and MIT, or in R&D projects in enabling technologies. Such
Silicon Valley next to Stanford. really represented collaboration requires a major commitment of
highly concentrated defence spending in one or time and resources by all concerned. Geographical
two key universities. ” proximity to academic research is not considered

172 Technovation Volume 12 No 3

 Academic-industry links and innovation

necessary in the case of such collaborative R&D. References

Conversely, there is evidence to suggest that the
separation of R&D from manufacture and pro-
duction, which is inherent in the UK science parks
model, may inhibit the wider innovation process.
Viewed from the perspective of concern over the
performance of the UK economy, the danger with
the science park approach is that it gives the
concrete appearance of something being done to
bridge the UK gap between research and pro-
duction, when the evidence suggests that this is not,
in general, the case.
The UK science park phenomenon, itself drawing
on an unrealistic interpretation of US post-war
industrial history, is now being seen as a model for
other countries, in southern and eastern Europe,
and in the developing nations of the south. This
paper has suggested that there are conceptual and
practical problems with the UK approach, and that
those agencies seeking to support academic-
industry links with a view to promoting techno-
logical innovation would better achieve their
objectives by looking beyond the science park
model.
Notes
’ Not all of these are called ‘science parks’. e.g. Heriot-
Watt Research Park and London’s South Bank
Technopark.
? See ref. 2 for analysis of the implications of science
parks for regional development.
3 The survey of 183 science park firms together with
101 firms located off-park (selected to be in similar
sectors and to be of broadly similar age and size as the
science park sample) was undertaken in a collaborative
study organised by the UK Science Parks Association
and involving the Technology Policy Group (TPG) at
The Open University, the Centre for Urban and
Regional Development Studies (CURDS) at Newcastle
University, and Peat Mat-wick McLintock. who provided
part of the funding for the study.
4 That is. the next upswing in economic activity.
named after the Russian economist who provided an
analysis of long waves in macro-economic phenomena.
1 UKSPA. ‘Forward’ to Science Parks Directory, UK
Science Parks Association. Sutton Coldfield.
1985.
2 D. Massey, P. Quintas and D. Wield, High Tech
Fantasies: Science Parks in Society, Science and
Space. Routledge, London, 1992.
3 C.S.P. Monck P. Quintas. R.B. Porter. D.J. Storey
and P. Wynarczyk Science Parks and the Growth of
High Technology Firms. Croom Helm, London.
1988.
4 I. Dalton. Opening Statement by the Chairman of
UKSPA. UK Science Park Association Annual
Conference. London, December 1985.
Financial Times. 9 February 1988, p. 12.
E.B. Roberts and HA. Wainer, New enterprises on
route 128, Science Journal (December 1968) 78-83.
AC. Cooper. Spin-offs and technical entrepreneur-
ship. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-
ment, 18( 1) (1971) 2-6.
8 R. Oakey. British university science parks and high
technology small firms: a comment on the potential
for sustained industrial growth. International Small
Business Journal. 4(l) (Autumn 1985) 58-67.
9 L. Peters and H. Fusfield. Current US university-
industry research connections. In National Science
Foundation. University-Industry Research Relation-
ships. Washington DC (1982) p. 107.
10 W.K Bolton. Entrepreneurial opportunities for the
academic. Presented at the UK Science Park
Association Annual Conference, London. December
1986, p. 2.
11 D.J. Storey and A Strange, Where are they now?
Some changes in firms located on UK science parks
in 1986: Fifth Annual Conference of the UK Science
Parks Association. Birmingham. UK 1990.
12 K. Pavitt, What do we know about the usefulness of
science? The case for diversity. pp 21-46. In
D. Hague (ed.), The Management of Science.
Macmillan, London. 1991. pp. 21-46.
13 M. Aoki. Horizontal vs vertical information structure
of the firm. The American Economic Review. 76(5)
(1986) 971-983.
14 P. Hall. The geography of the fifth Kondratieff cycle.
New Society, 26th March 1981. pp 535-537.
15 A. Markusen. P. Hall and A. Glasmeier. High Tech
America: The What. How. Where and Why of the
Sunrise Industries. Allen and Unwin. London. 1986.
p. 177.

Technovation Volume 12 No 3 173

P. Quin tas et al.
Paul Quintas is Research
Fellow at the Science Policy
Research Unit. University of
Sussex where he has com-
pleted research on UK and
overseas government pro-
grammes of collaborative
R&D in the IT area. Pre-
viously he was a Fellowat the
Technology Policy Group at
the Open University com-
pleting research into UK
science parks. He has pub-
lished in both areas.
David Wield is Senior Lec-
turer in the Faculty of Tech-
nology at The Open Univer-
sitv, and Director of the OU
Centre for Technology Stra-
tegy. He has taught and
published in the areas of
technology policy and tech-
nology development.
Doreen Massey is Professor
of Geography and Head of
the Geography Department
at The Open University. She
has a major interest in indus-
trial location and spatial
divisions of labour, and has
taught and published widely
in these areas.
Les liens universit&industrie et
I’innovation: des doutes sur le mod&le
du “parque des sciences”
RBSUM~
Des resources considerables sont consacres aux
“parques des sciences” comme instruments de
174
politique vises a promouvoir l’activite industrielle
et innovative basee dans la recherche. Ce
phenomene, qui a commence aux Etats-Unis et en
Europe attire maintenant l’interet partout dans le
monde, y compris 1’Europe orientale, l’Amerique
du Sud et l’Afiique. Le concepte des liens entre les
entreptises commerciales et la recherche academique
se trouve au centre du modele americain et anglais
du “parque des sciences”. A partir des donnts
empiriques provenant du Royaume Uni, cet article
evalue le role potentiel et actuel des “parques des
sciences” comme liens entre la recherche
acadtmique et l’activite industrielle. Ces
conclusions montrent que l’experience actuelle au
Royaume Uni ne suggere pas la presence dun
niveau ClCve de relations de ce type. En plus,
l’analyse de la base empirique et theorique des
“parques des sciences” basee sur la comprehension
actuelle du processus d’innovation et de la relation
entre la recherche academique et l’activite indust-
rielle suggere que le modele mCme du “parque des
sciences” devient probltmatique.
Akademische-Verbindungen und
Innovation mit der Industrie: in frage
stellung des Wissenschaftspark Modells
ABRISS
Erhebliche Mittel werden fur Wissenschaftsparks
als Instrumente der Politik verwendet, mit dem
Ziel der Forderung einer auf Forschung basierten
industriellen und innovativen Aktivitat. Das
Phanomen, das in der USA und in Europa
angefangen hat, zieht jetzt Interesse aus der
ganzen Welt, einschliesslich Osteuropa, Siid-
America und Afrika, auf sich. Das Konzept einer
Verbindung zwischen : kommerziellen Unter-
nehmen und akademischer Forschung ist der Kern
des US und UK Wissenschaftspark Modells. Auf
der Basis der in dem UK vollendeten empirischen
Forschung, Wagt das Referat die potentielle und
tatsachliche Rolle der Wissenschaftsparks ab, und
zwar hinsichtlich der Verbindung akademischer
Forschung mit industrieller Tatigkeit. Diese
Technovation Volume 12 No 3

Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die augenblickliche
Erfahrung in dem UK kein wesentliches Niveau
solcher Verbindungen aufweist. Weiterhin deutet
unter dem Heranziehen der heutigen Kenntnisse
des Innovationsvorgangs und dem Zusammenhang
zwischen akademischer Forschung und indust-
rieller Tatigkeit, eine Analyse der empirischen und
theoretischen Basis fur die Wissenschaftsparks an,
dass das Wissenschaftspark Model1 selbst problem-
atisch ist.
Los vinculos universidad-industria y la
innovacibn: dudas sobre el modelo del
“parque de ciencias”
RESUMEN
Se estan dirigiendo recursos importantes hacia
el establecimiento de “parques de ciencia” coma
instrumentos de politica con el objetivo de
Technovation Volume 12 No 3
Academic-industry links and innovation
promover la actividad de innovation e industrial
basada en la investigation. Este fenomeno que
tuvo su origen en 10s E.E.U.U. y Europa empieza
ahora a suscitar inter& en todo el mundo,
incluyendo Europa Occidental, America de1 sur y
Africa. El concept0 de la articulation entre
empresas comerciales y la investigation a nivel
academic0 se encuentra al centro de1 modelo de1
“parque de ciencias” de Norteamerica y el Reino
Unido. Basandose en investigation empirica
llevada a cabo en el Reino Unido, este articulo
evalua el papel actual y potential de 10s “parques
de ciencias” en la vinculacion de la investigation
academica a la actividad industrial. Los resultados
muestran que en la experiencia actual en el Reino
Unido esta articulation no ocurre a altos niveles.
Ademas, un analisis de la base empirica y teorica
de 10s “parques de ciencias” basado en el conoci-
miento actual de1 proceso de innovation y en la
relation entre la investigation academica y la
actividad industrial, sugiere que el modelo de1
“parque de ciencias” resulta en si problematico.
175