TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

O-003Centreless governance for the management of a global R&D process: Public-Private Partnerships and Plant-Genetic Resource ManagementIIBill Boland, Peter Phillips Camille D. Ryan, University of Saskatchewan, CanadaIntroductionRecent research suggests that the key to economic growth is developing an institutional framework that connects local capabilitiesto the global knowledge flows to create a value-added process. In this world view, codified knowledge consisting of intellectualproperty rights and specialized proprietary technologies, exist in global flows that are available to any entity with the requisiteinstitutional characteristics to connect to the innumerable global networks of knowledge pipelines, while tacit knowledge isderived from “learn by doing” and exists locally (Phillips 2002 and Bathelt, Maimberg and Maskell 2004). This paper presentsand critically examines the public-private partnership (P3) as the logical institutional design to create the linkages required tocapture and process global knowledge flows into local value-added innovation.Research focusPulse crops are an important source of plant-based protein, supplying about 10% of the world’s total dietary intake of protein.However, due to the inability of both the public and private sectors to provide production ready technology, producer groups havehad to create self-governing organizations for the purpose of creating technology oriented P3s. The global pulse breedingnetwork of 248 actors (42 P3s, 107 government agencies, 83 universities and 16 private-sector entities) has been identified andcoded. The global pulse network has also been disaggregated into 3 regional sub-systems, one in the EU (134 actors), oneconsisting of the US, Canada and Australia (the Export System with 66 actors) and one in the Developing World with 69 actors.All four networks are constructed on, and dependent upon, a small number of P3s for their structural integrity. The removal ofthese particular P3s causes significant impairment to the composition of each network, demonstrating that P3s possess theinstitutional attributes that both facilitates collaboration between partners of dissimilar characteristics and connects localnetworks into the global systems of knowledge flows, providing the structural foundation for regional and international R&Dnetworks.Theoretical contextualizationA P3 can be defined as an organizational structure that facilitates collaboration between partners from different sectors—public,private and voluntary. The factors that have influenced the advent of the P3 include declining public revenue, technologicaladvances, increasing citizen participation and privatization efforts (Boase,2000). As the theory of the P3 is under developed, anumber of theories are required to contextualize the P3. One perspective, postulates that three theories are required to explainthe existence of research oriented P3s (Hagedoorn, 2000). These are transaction cost theory, which seeks the lowest cost ofcontract management and enforcement. Strategic management theory, which suggests partnerships and networks permit firmsto attain economies of scale and scope in their R&D endeavours and industrial organization theory, where knowledge is a publicgood therefore public-private collaboration is needed for cost sharing and commercialization purposes. Research P3s can becategorized by the type of knowledge developed, a formal structure is best suited for codified knowledge, and an informalstructure for non-codified knowledge.MethodologySocial Network Analysis (SNA) is a tool that illuminates the previously invisible relations between individuals and institutions ina networked environment (Mead, 2001). With SNA it becomes possible to graphically identify and quantify the relative powerrelations and functions between individuals and organizations within a network or sub-networks. SNA utilizes three uniquemeasures of centrality. First, total degree centrality measures the ability of a single actor to influence communications over anetwork providing that actor with relative control over the flow of information. Second, betweeness centrality measures how oftenan actor is positioned between the shortest paths linking other actors. Third, eigenvector measures power by measuring therelative strength of one actor’s connections to other well connected actors’. Put simply, a high eigenvector rating implies relativepower in a network is derived from the relative importance of an actor’s connections, not the quantity of connections (Bonacich,1972).FindingsIndividual actors are ranked according to how many standard deviations their centrality measures are above the overall populationmean in each of the sub-systems and the global network. Therefore, only institutions with a centrality measure of one standarddeviation or more above mean are considered central actors. Of the 19 actors with measures one standard deviation or moreabove the mean of the three measures in the Export System, 13 (68%) are P3s, including the top ranked actor in each of therankings. The ratio is 100% for the central position of P3s in the Developing System (9 of 9); one P3 is ranked number one in allthree categories in the EU System, but overall, P3s occur at a much lower ratio (18%) and in the Global System, 20 out of 25(80%) top ranked actors, again, are P3s. As characterized by the three SNA centrality measures and demonstrated graphicallyby the vulnerability analysis, the four networks would not exist without the structural coherence provided by P3s.Madrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 201036