Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

5. Discussion and conclusion
David Grosse Kathoefer and Jens Leker
In this paper, we developed a robust measurement model for <strong>the</strong> Not-Invented-Here Syndrome in an
academic context. We adapted existing scales from literature and transferred <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>the</strong> university
research setting. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, we deduced 8 hypo<strong>the</strong>ses from <strong>the</strong>ory and existing studies on NIH and
tested <strong>the</strong>m in a SEM, using a sample <strong>of</strong> 477 German pr<strong>of</strong>essors from <strong>the</strong> natural sciences.
The antecedents prior studies proposed to influence NIH do not fit in an academic context totally.
Thus, we discuss <strong>the</strong> falsified hypo<strong>the</strong>ses first. A good internal communication seems to be no
possible means to reduce NIH infection. Although most <strong>of</strong> NIH studies mention that as a critical
aspect (e.g. Clagett, 1967, Katz and Allen, 1982), academia is different. One reason might be that <strong>the</strong>
organizational structures are not comparable. In a university setting, <strong>the</strong> researchers are more selffocused
and more or less independent in <strong>the</strong>ir research directions. Moreover, academics are <strong>of</strong>ten
more interconnected with scientists in <strong>the</strong> scientific community than with colleagues inside <strong>the</strong> own
university (Cyert and Goodman, 1997). Therefore, internal communication does not play such an
important role in academics’ all-day work at all.
A similar stream <strong>of</strong> arguments can be presented for <strong>the</strong> non-significant relationship between “Years at
university” and NIH. As <strong>the</strong> ties in universities seem to be ra<strong>the</strong>r weak <strong>the</strong> danger <strong>of</strong> forming too
stable groups hardly exists. Katz and Allen (1982) argue that <strong>the</strong> length <strong>of</strong> tenure in a project group
foster <strong>the</strong> feeling <strong>of</strong> possessing a monopoly <strong>of</strong> knowledge in <strong>the</strong> respective research field. Due to <strong>the</strong>
orientation towards <strong>the</strong> scientific community, potential strong group can ra<strong>the</strong>r be found in external
networks. Thus, <strong>the</strong> period <strong>of</strong> time a researcher is affiliated with a university does not impact NIH.
The third discussable indicator is “Work routine”. Again, <strong>the</strong> proposed relationship from industryrelated
papers does not hold true in our academic setting. A reason might be that industrial R&D <strong>of</strong>ten
searches for problem-oriented solutions (Ziman, 2000). Here, this finding process may be more
structured and optimized with regards to efficiency. In contrast to this, university R&D is more
interested in creating a deeper understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problem itself (Ziman, 2000). Thus, thirst for
knowledge plays a more important role in academic R&D than efficiency.
Although <strong>the</strong> relationship between “Group pride” and NIH is significant, H4 was rejected as <strong>the</strong>
direction is reverse. In this light, we can assume that scientists being proud <strong>of</strong> being part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir
university tend to be affiliated with institutions <strong>of</strong> high reputation. Regularly, equivalent status plays an
important role in partner choice (Podolny, 1994). Thus, <strong>the</strong> respective scientists may experience
external knowledge <strong>of</strong> higher quality and, <strong>the</strong>refore, may be less reluctant to it.
All o<strong>the</strong>r hypo<strong>the</strong>ses are supported. Therefore, we can draw three main conclusions. First <strong>of</strong> all,
experience is an important factor. If scientists are satisfied with collaboration activities with external
partners <strong>the</strong>y will show less prejudices against external knowledge. This is in line with psychological
literature as human beings try to avoid depressing situations but are in favor <strong>of</strong> pleasant situations
(Smith and Mackie, 2007). Secondly, collaboration is a double-edged sword. Industry partnership
increases NIH infection whereas academic partnership decreases it. Due to <strong>the</strong> different research
environments, collaboration between university and industry may inherit a higher risk <strong>of</strong> failure (Cyert
and Goodman, 1997). In combination with <strong>the</strong> first conclusion, this may be an explanation for <strong>the</strong>
respective finding. However, future research should clarify this aspect and dig deeper into <strong>the</strong>
interrelations <strong>of</strong> research setting and quality <strong>of</strong> project experience. Thirdly, <strong>the</strong> social influence seems
to be important. Thus, creating an atmosphere <strong>of</strong> sharing in <strong>the</strong> university plays a pivotal role and
enhances <strong>the</strong> fruitful and multidirectional discussions among researchers.
All in all, we can derive two main implications. Firstly, academic policy-makers should create a
knowledge-sharing friendly environment. On <strong>the</strong> one hand, this includes <strong>the</strong> easy initiation <strong>of</strong>
collaboration activities. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, especially collaborations with industrial partners should be
supported to increase <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> such relationships. Secondly, industrial managers should be
aware <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> potential existence <strong>of</strong> NIH in an academic context. Besides, <strong>the</strong>y should also improve
<strong>the</strong>ir collaboration activities with university partners to secure a better quality <strong>of</strong> research. Moreover,
<strong>the</strong>y should consider collaboration-experienced partners as <strong>the</strong>y tend to be more open to bidirectional
discussion. Finally, we can state that this paper contributes to <strong>the</strong> existing body <strong>of</strong> knowledge
literature. It establishes a robust measurement model for <strong>the</strong> well-known knowledge transfer obstacle,
367