Feb 28 2007 Libraries Archives

The Duality of Innovation: Implications for the Role of the University in Economic Development by Carlos Andres Martinez Vela B.Sc., Engineering Physics ITESM. Monterrey, Mdxico, 1995 S.M. Technology and Policy. MIT, 1998 Submitted to the Engineering Systems Division In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Technology, Management and Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology February, 2007 C 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All Ri Re rved Signature of the Author: ........................... ........ .............. Engine ri Systems Division vember 27, 2006 Certified by:..... ................................................. Richard K. Lester Professo f u ar Science and Engineering Thesis Suptrvisor and Directp'IWMy1 Performance Center, MIT C e rtifie d b y : .. ----- - -- ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----. ----..-- ------ - ------- David A. Mindell Francis and David Dibner Professor of the History of Engineering and Manufacturing Director, Program in Science, Technology, and Society, MIT Certified by: -- r-----------------------. .-......-.-.--.------------------ Michael J. Piore David W. Skinner Professor of Political Economy /P Dfpartments of Economics and Political Science, MIT Certified by: .Markku Sotarauta Professor of Regional Studies and Director, Research Unit for Urban and Regional Development Studies, U. of Tampere, Finland Accepted by : ........................................................... ... ............. .. ...................... Richard de Neufville MASS / 1ofessor of Engineering Systems OF'TECHNOLOGY h I hair, ESD Education Committee, MIT FEB 28 2007 ARCHIVES LIBRARIES C.A. Martinez-Vela, The Duality of Innovation The Duality of Innovation: Implications for the Role of the University in Economic Development by Carlos Andres Martinez Vela Submitted to the Engineering Systems Division on November 27, 2006 In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Technology, Management and Policy Abstract The university is increasingly seen as an engine of regional economic development. Since the 1980s the university's role has been framed in terms of its contribution to industrial innovation. The conventional wisdom views this contribution as occurring primarily through the technology transfer model. The university, in this way of thinking, must move closer to industry and the marketplace by translating research into deliverables for commercialization. This dissertation challenges the empirical validity of this view. Two case studies of industrial upgrading form the empirical core of this research: the machinery industry in Tampere, Finland and the NASCAR motorsports industry in Charlotte, North Carolina. In each case I analyze the university's role from the ground up using a conceptual framework that views the innovation as a social process that has a dual nature: analytic and interpretive. From an analytic perspective innovation is a problem-solving activity. From an interpretive perspective innovation is an ongoing conversation. I find that in neither case is the university's most important contribution to each industry's upgrading made through the technology transfer model. In Tampere, whose core innovation process is interpretive, the local university creates spaces for interaction and conversation that enable knowledge integration, provides interlocutors for exploratory conversations, and educates engineers. In Charlotte, whose innovation process is analytic, the local university plays essentially no role. NASCAR teams rely on business partners for technology transfer and attempts to make the university active in technology transfer for the industry have yet to succeed. The duality of innovation helps to explain the university's role in the Tampere case and its absence in the Charlotte case. I argue that the technology transfer model implicitly assumes that innovation is analytic and thus misses the interpretive side of innovation. The case study findings suggest three things. First, the university has a distinctive ability to make interpretive contributions to industrial innovation. Second, practices emphasized by the technology transfer model, such as patenting and technology commercialization, do not account for the university's interpretive role. Third and finally, too much emphasis on the technology transfer model may put at risk the university's interpretive capabilities and hence its most distinctive contribution to industrial innovation. Thesis Supervisor: Richard K. Lester Title: Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering Director, MIT Industrial Performance Center C.A. Martinez-Vela, The Duality of Innovation 4 C.A. Martinez-Vela, The Duality of Innovation Acknowledgements I was asked recently what is the origin of my love for the university and I could not give an answer. I later thought that the university has been part of my existence since before I was born. My two grandfathers and my father were (among other things) academics and Deans in the School of Medicine at the University of Nuevo Le6n in Monterrey, Mexico, my hometown. Through my mother I was exposed to the university since before I was born. She found out she was pregnant with me the same day she was granted a scholarship to begin college. She would go on to pursue graduate studies and become an academic herself. Through both my father and my mother I experienced what it means to have a passion for higher learning. But my belief in the university and my desire to understand its transformative and humanizing power in society is, in the end, my own. It started in my college years at Monterrey Tech, when I was deeply involved in student life. It was nurtured there after I finished college, when I discovered how much I love teaching, how academic research can contribute to innovation, and how challenging it is to manage a university. In the Fall of 1996 1 came to MIT for the first time with only an incipient interest in better understanding the role of the university in economic development. Since then, the university has been a consistent companion in my life and has been joined by a deep fascination with the how people innovate. The road has been neither straight nor easy. Along the way, there were many without whom this document would not be what it is and perhaps would not exist altogether. The first note of gratitude goes to my dissertation committee. Richard Lester, my advisor, welcomed me into the MIT Industrial Performance Center. He created the conditions without which this pursuit would not have been possible: financial support, physical space, interesting problems, a community of scholars, intellectual inspiration, endless curiosity, pragmatism, challenge, honesty, trust, and a lot of patience. Without Michael Piore's friendship, trust, patience, insight, honest critique, and unwavering support and guidance in times of personal and intellectual discovery, consolation, and desolation, I would not be writing this sentence. I am indebted to Richard and Michael for introducing me to the duality of innovation. David Mindell sowed the inspiration to enter the fascinating world of the history and sociology of technology. His belief in my work, insightful feedback, and financial support in the last stage of this work were vital to bring this to completion. Markku Sotarauta has made possible my close and continuing involvement with Finland. In Tampere he provided not only a fascinating intellectual endeavor. He made me part of a welcoming community of scholars and friends. His expertise on regional development issues has been fundamental. During the early stages of my doctoral work the intellectual guidance and support of Richard Chait from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, were essential to deepen my understanding of the complex tasts of managing, leading, and transforming a university. This dissertation stems from my participation in the Local Innovation Systems Project, an international research partnership based at the MIT Industrial Performance Center. Having been part of this project made me able to pursue this research. My Local C.A. Martinez-Vela, The Duality of Innovation Innovation Systems Project colleagues made countless contributions to this intellectual endeavor through their ideas and friendship. I thank you all. I am especially grateful to Kimmo Viljamaa from the University of Tampere. We made a good part of our fieldwork in Tampere and Charlotte jointly and wrote early case study drafts together, enriching and motivating each other's intellectual growth. Most importantly, out of this collaboration grew a friendship for life. My intellectual and personal experience at the MIT Industrial Performance Center was made joyful and enriching by my colleagues Dan Breznitz, Teresa Lynch, Sara-Jane McCaffrey, Ben Pinney, Sean Safford, and Smita Srinivas. Without Anita Kafka's motherly care, warm presence and administrative support it would not have been the same to be at the IPC every day. Before he left the IPC, Scott Shurtleff's friendship and professionalism made a difference. I am grateful to Alok Chakrabarty from the New Jersey Institute of Technology and former visiting scholar at the IPC, for providing the initial motivation to go to Finland, a country that I now consider an integral part of my personal, intellectual, and cultural growth during my Ph.D. studies. The numerous times I went there would have been very different without my colleagues Kati-Jasmin Kosonen, Juha Nummi, and Katja Lahenius. The task

Load more