Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Simona Agoston et al.
marketing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> university, bad reputation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> partner, short term orientation, communication
problems, too strong <strong>the</strong>oretical orientation (Goldfarb and Henrekson, 2003; Hubig and Jonen, 2006;
Ndonzuau et al., 2002).
Knowledge transfer is classified according to different criteria. We can differentiate between personal
and technology transfer (Geuna and Muscio, 2008; Hubig and Jonen, 2006) The first group
summarizes <strong>the</strong> transfer <strong>of</strong> knowledge in form <strong>of</strong> well educated graduates to <strong>the</strong> labour market, in
forms <strong>of</strong> practitioners delivering presentations within academic courses, in form <strong>of</strong> scholarships
granted by organizations to students, prizes and awards for outstanding results, training programs
<strong>of</strong>fered by pr<strong>of</strong>essors to employees etc. In <strong>the</strong> category <strong>of</strong> technology transfer fall joint research
programs with <strong>the</strong> private sector, o<strong>the</strong>r public institutions and NGOs, publishing research results,
consulting services etc. Next we can differentiate between knowledge outflow and knowledge inflow.
Knowledge produced by <strong>the</strong> university and transferred to its stakeholders represents <strong>the</strong> outflow,
while knowledge captured by universities from o<strong>the</strong>r entities represents <strong>the</strong> knowledge inflow.
Considering <strong>the</strong> role played by universities in <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> society it should exist a balance
between <strong>the</strong> outflow and inflow <strong>of</strong> knowledge. Knowledge can be transferred through formal and
informal channels (Agrawal, 2001; Link et al., 2007). The researchers note a shift from <strong>the</strong> informal
processes to formal ones, once <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> knowledge transfer increased in universities and
<strong>the</strong>re were established specialized departments in order to manage this task.
Especially in <strong>the</strong> last ten years it can be observed <strong>the</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> a large number <strong>of</strong> papers which
examine knowledge transfer activities between universities and industry (business sector) (Agrawal,
2001; Geuna and Muscio, 2008; Hubig and Jonen, 2006; Santoro and Gopalakrishnan, 2000; Yusuf,
2008). Less attention was paid to knowledge transfer between universities and o<strong>the</strong>r important
stakeholders such as students, alumni, society, public institutions etc. Duan et al. (2010) argue that
<strong>the</strong>re are four levels <strong>of</strong> knowledge transfer: <strong>the</strong> individual level, <strong>the</strong> intra-organisational level, <strong>the</strong> interorganisational
level and <strong>the</strong> multinational level. The present paper will focus on <strong>the</strong> knowledge
transfer at inter-organisational level, namely between universities and its stakeholders. From <strong>the</strong>
perspective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> university, <strong>the</strong>re have been identified four main categories <strong>of</strong> transfer partners:
business environment, public bodies (universities, international associations, high schools etc.),
students and third parties (alumni, society, non-governmental organizations etc.).
2. Knowledge transfer activities within Romanian universities
The knowledge transfer activities between university and its partners were structured in four
categories, each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m corresponding to one category <strong>of</strong> stakeholders: knowledge transfer activities
with business environment, knowledge transfer activities with public bodies, knowledge transfer
activities with students, knowledge transfer activities with third parties. The aforementioned
knowledge transfer activities were analyzed on <strong>the</strong> concrete example <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Academy <strong>of</strong> Economic
Studies <strong>of</strong> Bucharest. To each category <strong>of</strong> knowledge transfer activities <strong>the</strong>re were assigned several
performance indicators, as presented in <strong>the</strong> table (Table 1). These indicators facilitate <strong>the</strong> assessment
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> overall knowledge transfer activity in <strong>the</strong> University, as illustrated within <strong>the</strong> next chapter <strong>of</strong>
research methodology.
Knowledge transfer between academic institutions and <strong>the</strong> business sector is understood as “any
activities aimed at transferring knowledge or technology that may help ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> company or <strong>the</strong>
academic institute – depending on <strong>the</strong> direction <strong>of</strong> transfer – to fur<strong>the</strong>r pursue its activities” (Arvanitis
et al., 2008, p.1866). The interaction between business sector and science represents a main concern
for economic policy makers, since in <strong>the</strong> knowledge economy science exerts a major influence on
innovation, which is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main sources <strong>of</strong> competitive advantage. Still, <strong>the</strong>re are voices stating
that, in order to counterbalance <strong>the</strong> public underfinancing many universities show <strong>the</strong> tendency <strong>of</strong>
commercialization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research results and this might jeopardize <strong>the</strong> fundamental long-term
research and teaching objectives <strong>of</strong> a university and negatively impact on scientific quality (Stephan,
2001; Tijssen, 2004). On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, in <strong>the</strong> USA <strong>the</strong>re is evidence that projects conducted by
universities and financed by private enterprises can meet <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> both parties, if a long term
perspective is adopted by both entities. Never<strong>the</strong>less <strong>European</strong> universities are lagging behind in this
aspect (Arvanitis et al., 2008). This might be traced back to <strong>the</strong> time when universities were isolated in
<strong>the</strong>ir ivory tower, being disconnected from practice and to <strong>the</strong> traditional <strong>European</strong> paradigm <strong>of</strong>
university’s scope and mission in society, as opposed to <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> entrepreneurial university
(Bratianu, 2001).
25