bdi confederación de la industria alemana - reditiam.org · para pymes fuente: steinbeis, 2010...
TRANSCRIPT
Proyecto
Asociación para la Innovación
Alemania – México / Alianza del Pacífico
BDI – Confederación de la Industria Alemana
Confederación de la Industria Alemana (BDI)
• La Confederación de la Industria
Alemana (BDI) es la organización
cúpula que representa la Industria
Alemana y proveedores de
servicios relacionados con la
industria.
• BDI interviene por 36
asociaciones comerciales y más
de 100,000 empresas con
alrededor de 8 millones de
empleados.
• 15 organizaciones en los Estados
federados (Länder) representan
los intereses de la industria a nivel
regional.
Innovation Partnership Germany - Mexico/Pacific Alliance Página 2
Nuestra tarea
• La tarea de BDI es asegurar las
mejores condiciones posibles para
el desarrollo de las empresas.
• Nuestro principio rector es:
BDI sirve a la industria
– y la industria sirve a la gente.
Página 3Innovation Partnership Germany - Mexico/Pacific Alliance
Proyecto de la Confederación de la Industria Alemana (BDI):
Asociación para la Innovación Alemania – México / Alianza del Pacífico
Página 4
Objetivo general: El mejoramiento de las condiciones (sistémicas) políticas e
institucionales y el fortalecimiento de actividades empresariales sostenibles
coadyuvan a las innovaciones, aumento de la competitividad y al empleo en
México y en otros países de la Alianza del Pacífico.
Innovation Partnership Germany - Mexico/Pacific Alliance
Asociación para la Innovación Alemania – México / Alianza del Pacífico:
El proyecto se desarrolla en 3 niveles regionales
Página 5
• A nivel Alianza del Pacífico: construcción de una red
transnacional de cooperación e innovación con las
organizaciones empresariales cúpula.
• A nivel nacional en México: profundización de la
cooperación con COPARMEX y USEM en los temas de
políticas de innovación y ordenamiento económico.
• A nivel región piloto en los Estados de Aguascalientes,
Guanajuato, Jalisco, Querétaro y perspectivo San Luis
Potosí: mayor cooperación con los Clústeres Tecnológicos
(incl. Cadenas de Valor y Redes de Innovación) para la
implementación ejemplar de elementos de una política de
innovación sostenible.
Innovation Partnership Germany - Mexico/Pacific Alliance
Asociación para la Innovación Alemania – México / Alianza del Pacífico:
Resultado a nivel región piloto AGS-GTO-JAL-QRO (perspectivo SLP)
Página 6
Fuente: Cluster Navigators Ltd, 1997
La administración de
los Clústeres
seleccionados en la
región del proyecto
son cada uno capaces
de iniciar y controlar
estratégicamente la
transferencia de
conocimiento, fomento
a la innovación y
sustentabilidad
empresarial en redes
de colaboración.
Innovation Partnership Germany - Mexico/Pacific Alliance
Asociación para la Innovación Alemania – México / Alianza del Pacífico:
Resultado a nivel región piloto AGS-GTO-JAL-QRO (perspectivo SLP)
Página 7
Indicador 1:
Establecimiento de una
red de consultores y
expertos para la
transferencia de
conocimiento y de
tecnología en la región
piloto, basado en el
modelo de Steinbeis.
Transferencia de Conocimiento
El Sistema Steinbeis de Alemania
Transferencia de Conocimiento y “Solución de Problemas“
para PyMEsFuente: Steinbeis, 2010
Innovation Partnership Germany - Mexico/Pacific Alliance
Asociación para la Innovación Alemania – México / Alianza del Pacífico:
Resultado a nivel región piloto AGS-GTO-JAL-QRO (perspectivo SLP)
Página 8
Indicador 2:
5 proyectos piloto de
gestión innovadora de
empresas y
responsabilidad social
corporativa, basados en
el modelo de referencia
de “econsense"
(Foro para el desarrollo
sustentable de la
economia alemana).
Fuente: econsense, 2016
Innovation Partnership Germany - Mexico/Pacific Alliance
Asociación para la Innovación Alemania – México / Alianza del Pacífico:
Resultado a nivel región piloto AGS-GTO-JAL-QRO (perspectivo SLP)
Página 9
Worldwide Leadership in Social and Ecological Compliance Standards.
Promover una plataforma empresarial en Mexico para introducir y “vivir” los
Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) de las Naciones Unidas.
Fuente: econsense, 2016
Miembros
Innovation Partnership Germany - Mexico/Pacific Alliance
Asociación para la Innovación Alemania – México / Alianza del Pacífico:
Resultado a nivel región piloto AGS-GTO-JAL-QRO (perspectivo SLP)
Página 10
Indicador 3:
El modelo de la
Educación Superior
basado en la práctica es
establecido en al menos
un Estado de la región
piloto del proyecto
(al menos está en curso
1 Ciclo de Formación
Piloto dirigido por
instituciones educativas
y empresas en
conjunto).
Fuente: Prof. Matthias Landmesser, „Herausforderungen für die akademische Weiterbildung aus Unternehmenssicht“, KIT, 2013
Innovation Partnership Germany - Mexico/Pacific Alliance
Cambios en las necesidades de cualificación en la
economía: De la pirámide al rombo
Alemania
Sigrid Zirbel, BDI, [email protected]
Joachim Elsässer, IFG, [email protected]
Uta Knott, IFG, [email protected]
Contactos
México
Alberto Equihua, IFG, [email protected]
German Bonilla, IFG, [email protected]
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 1/20
The Steinbeis-Model of
Knowledge and Technology Transfer Governance
Structures and Recent Reform Processes
Paper Submitted to
Panel F - Research and Knowledge Utilization in Public Management/
F102 - Research and Practice: Reinventing the Space Between
(SIG on CPMRPIO)
Work in Progress: Please do not quote or cite!
Dr. Michael Ortiz
Project Manager
Steinbeis-Foundation
Dr. Michael Ortiz | [email protected] | Willi-Bleicher-Straße 19 | 70174 Stuttgart | Germany
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 2/20
Abstract
In the wake of the current economic, fiscal and monetary crisis (Streeck 2013; Scharpf
2011) the competitiveness of whole national economies, regions and large parts of the
business sector is questioned. The innovative ability not only of firms, but also of the
institutional frameworks surrounding them is increasingly moving into the center of
interest (Archibugi et al. 1999; Streeck 2004; Archibugi/Iammarino 2010). Decisive in
reconstructing, maintaining and developing competitive edges with regard to innovation
are processes of knowledge and technology transfer connecting science and practice
and representing indispensable preconditions for innovation processes
(Audretsch/Lehmann 2005; Edquist 2005; Acs et al. 1999).
The proposed paper will focus on the Steinbeis model of knowledge and technology
transfer as a unique type of institutional knowledge and technology transfer
governance at the micro level, i.e. as an organizational model (Thommen 2003;
Thommen/Achleitner 2012) and meso level, i.e. governance as coordination of
economic actors (Hollingsworth et. al 1994, Voelzkow 2007). The aim is to discuss
central features of this particular governance model, bringing these features together
into a consistent governance concept, and to analyze its strengths and weaknesses as
well as current reform processes it is currently undergoing not only in the light of the
crisis, but also with reference to other long-term processes of socio-economic change.
1. Introduction
Like innovation, also knowledge and technology transfer has to be conceptualized as a
systemic process. These processes are frequently embedded into complex social
systems of innovation and production. Similar to many other socio-economic
processes, also these systems of knowledge and technology transfer are characterized
by specific models of governance to coordinate the transactions among their actors. In
the past, I have suggested a heuristic model to analyze systems of knowledge and
technology transfer in a systematic way (Ortiz 2013). This heuristic model
conceptualizes knowledge and technology transfer systems as specific configurations
of six ideal types of social and economic governance: state, market, organization,
network, association and community (Ortiz 2013: 86ff.; Hollingsworth et al. 1994: 5ff.;
Voelzkow 2007: 41). The model suggests that all structures, mechanisms and actors
constituting a knowledge and technology transfer system can be ascribed to one of
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 3/20
these ideal types, allowing to investigate and compare knowledge and technology
transfer systems on the basis of their particular governance model. Furthermore,
processes of institutional reform and change within these systems can be
reconstructed and analyzed as shifts in the configuration of its governance model (Ortiz
2013: 86ff.).
While this heuristic model has already been applied to knowledge and technology
transfer systems on the macro level, i.e. regional and national economies (Ortiz 2013),
the purpose of this paper is to also apply it to the meso level of a particular institutional
entity in the field of knowledge and technology transfer, namely the Steinbeis system of
technology transfer in the German region of Baden-Württemberg. While discussing this
particular case, the paper aims to show that also single systemic actors can be
characterized by their specific knowledge and technology transfer governance model.
In addition, the paper also addresses recent reform processes within the Steinbeis
system, showing in which way and to which degree governance models in knowledge
and technology transfer systems can shift while adapting to changes in their macro-
institutional environment.
The paper is structured as follows: Section two discusses a systemic approach to
analyze knowledge and technology transfer systems and introduces the structure and
distinct dimensions of the heuristic governance model underlying these systems.
Section three discusses the Steinbeis model of knowledge and technology transfer with
its formal organizational structure, the Steinbeis-Units as the model's central elements,
as well as its character as market laboratory and business model incubator. Section
four then analyzes two major challenges the Steinbeis governance model is recently
facing, the fragmentation of its service portfolio and the imbalance of performance
within the group. Sections five and six then point the respective reform processes
Steinbeis is currently undergoing and discusses two concrete project examples which
explicitly address these challenges: The Steinbeis Enterprise Competence Check and
the Joint Transfer Corporations with Universities. Section seven then summarizes the
results and provides an outlook to possible future developments of the Steinbeis
governance model.
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 4/20
2. The Governance of Knowledge and Technology Transfer
Like innovation, also knowledge and technology transfer must be conceptualized as
systemic processes. These processes show strong non-linear characteristics, and are
shaped by complex relationships of interaction, collaboration and interdependence. In
most cases, these relationships are characterized by their reciprocity, recursivity and a
multitude of feedback mechanisms (Edquist 2005: 185). A knowledge and technology
transfer system is, therefore, constituted by different elements like individual,
institutional and social actors and the specific relationships and interactions between
them in the production, diffusion and use of new and economically useful knowledge
and technology (Ortiz 2013: 32f.).
In addition, these processes are structured, shaped and mediated by specific formal
and informal institutions. This institutional set-up will, however, vary to a considerable
degree among knowledge and technology transfer systems. Therefore, differences in
the institutional set-up of specific knowledge and technology transfer systems should
be supposed to constitute important explanatory factors for differences in the concrete
structures and mechanisms of knowledge and technology transfer processes
observable within these systems (Ortiz 2013: 34).
As I suggested elsewhere (Ortiz 2013), it is both useful and necessary for purposes of
systematic and comparative analysis to apply a heuristic model of knowledge transfer
systems, which captures the basic structures and mechanisms of knowledge transfer in
different institutional dimensions of governance. This model can help to precisely name
and systemize the concrete mechanisms and channels of knowledge and technology
transfer in their systemic context and to reconstruct the structures these systems are
shaped by on the basis of (comparative) empirical analysis. The heuristic model uses
the six dimensions of institutional governance presented above and assigns to them
concrete mechanisms of knowledge and technology transfer which are pre-dominantly
shaped by one of the six ideal-typical forms of institutions (network, association,
organization, state, market, community) (Ortiz 2013: 86f.; Figure 1).
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 5/20
Fig. 1: A Heuristic Governance Model of Knowledge Transfer in Innovation Systems
Source: Ortiz (2013): 87
Shortly summarized, in this model the network dimension describes stable relations
and interactions of individuals or institutional actors without losing their autonomy. In
networks, the coordination of economic transactions is neither realized through simple
market based exchange processes, nor through instruction-based hierarchies, but
rather trough reciprocity, i.e. trust in the fact that an own input into the network will be
compensated at a later point with a more or less equivalent return. To this dimension of
knowledge and technology transfer mechanisms most sorts of informal as well as
institutionally stabilized networks can be counted, as would be horizontal business
networks, vertical networks between firms and their customers and suppliers,
collaborative inter-firm R&D-activities as well as cooperative R&D-projects between
firms and scientific institutions (Ortiz 2013: 88f.).
Second, the association based dimension of governance focuses on corporatist actors
like collective interest representation bodies coordinating their internal as well as their
external interactions through the concertation of interests. These bodies assume
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 6/20
considerable regulatory potential, so that they can enforce taken decisions through
effective organization structures, internally as well as in external collective agreements.
Above all, business- employers- and trade associations and chambers of industry and
commerce can be regarded as central association based mechanisms of knowledge
and technology transfer, in the sense that they create enhanced levels of trust among
their members and, therefore, foster intensified interaction and transfer activities.
Additionally, these associations and chambers are also active in elaborating and
implementing common and binding technical standards, as well as standards for
vocational training and education curricula, which can also be regarded as important
instruments in this regard (Ortiz 2013: 89).
Third, the organization is defined as a dimension of governance in which the inter-
actions between the actors are coordinated through hierarchies that are deduced from
specific formalized as well as informal rights and duties. In this type of governance,
knowledge and technology transfer is realized through the creation and adaptation of
organizational structures as well as the vertical integration of knowledge into the
hierarchy. The predominant organization based mechanisms of knowledge and
technology transfer, are, therefore, the transfer of highly qualified technical and
scientific staff from one organization to another and especially from academia to the
business sector, purposeful headhunting activities by firms to recruit highly qualified
personnel from other firms or research institutes, as well as business start-ups and
spin-offs (Ortiz 2013: 89f.).
Fourth, the state is defined to rely on hierarchical control to coordinate the interactions
of the actors using its monopoly of power allowing him to implement decisions, if
necessary by force. Central state induced mechanisms of knowledge and technology
transfer in this regard are both national and regional government policy measures in
the fields of knowledge and technology transfer, (larger) state-induced innovation
projects, public scientific parks and technological centers as well as technology transfer
agencies at the public universities and research institutes (Ortiz 2013: 90f.).
Moreover, the market can be defined as a fifth type of social governance in which
interactions of rational and utility maximizing actors are coordinated through atomistic
competition in the exchange of private goods and services by individuals and
collectivities (particularly firms) being primarily concerned with profit. The main market
based mechanisms of knowledge transfer are, therefore, mechanisms through which
knowledge is bought and sold by actors holding separate property rights in different
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 7/20
stocks of knowledge on the basis of legally enforceable contractual exchanges. To this
category would belong external consultancies, as well as mergers, acquisitions or
hostile takeovers, through which the stocks of knowledge incorporated in a whole firm
are bought by another firm. Furthermore, also the buying, selling and licensing of pa-
tents and other forms of IPRs must be mentioned in this regard (Ortiz 2013: 91f.).
Finally, in the community model of governance the central mechanism of coordination
between the actors is informal, voluntary, and sometimes spontaneous solidarity
among the members of a social unit, not being motivated by profit, but by the
appreciation of the other members of the community or the desire to belong to a group.
Therefore, to this model one should ascribe mechanisms of knowledge and technology
transfer which base on a strong and commonly shared historical, cultural and social
identity as major driving force. Informal contacts of any kind would be one of these
knowledge transfer mechanisms, through which the involved actors can exchange
knowledge on a low level, flexible, unplanned and non-contractual way, supported by
commonly shared languages, experiences, practices and worldviews. Another would
be regional platforms, on which actors from different fields can come together, interact
and exchange knowledge and ideas, as well as establish more stable and formalized
interaction. But also social media and virtual platforms can be mentioned in this regard
(Ortiz 2013: 92).
Taking this heuristic model as an analytical basis for investigating empirical cases of
knowledge and technology transfer systems allows for differentiating their particular
governance structures by the six dimensions discussed before, showing the specific
institutional configuration the respective systems are shaped by. Moreover, also
processes of institutional reform within these governance structures can be analyzed in
a detailed and systematic way. The present article intends to apply this heuristic model
to the Steinbeis model of knowledge and technology transfer, a systemic actor in the
field of knowledge and technology transfer in the German region of Baden-
Württemberg. This model, which in the past has been highlighted as exceptionally
effective and successful in promoting knowledge and technology transfer in its home
region (Beise et al. 1995; Braczyk et al. 1998: 229f.; Cooke et al. 2004; Krauss 2009;
Heidenreich/Krauss 2004; Fuchs/Wassermann 2004; Heidenreich 2001), and which
has undergone substantial growth processes in the last decade, currently finds itself in
a process of deep institutional reform. This paper intents to discuss these reform
processes with regard to the resulting changes in the system’s governance structure.
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 8/20
For this purpose, in a first step, the general governance structure of Steinbeis will be
discussed, before, in a second step, some currently realized reform processes will be
investigated exemplarily to show the general direction these and other reform
processes take.
3. The Steinbeis Model of Technology Transfer
The Steinbeis model of technology transfer governance (Steinbeis 2004a) can be
described as decentralized, competitive and entrepreneurial (Auer 2007). It bases on
the individual entrepreneurial initiative and bottom-up activities of actors at the
knowledge and technology sources of universities and R&D-institutions, as well as
firms and experts outside these institutions. To these actors, Steinbeis offers the
structural, organizational and legal framework for realizing transfer oriented projects
with economic added value in an entrepreneurial way. The model grounds on the
philosophy of a ―transfer via heads‖, i.e. via people, their know-how, their commitment
and their networks (Ortiz 2015).
3.1 The formal organizational framework
The roof of the Steinbeis Group is the non-profit Steinbeis Foundation. This foundation,
firming as a foundation under civil law, is founded with the clear mission to promote
knowledge and technology transfer in the German Land of Baden-Württemberg, and,
with that, to give the business sector in the Land access to the results of research and
development produced at the scientific institutions. Emphasizing the foundation’s
―private‖ (civil) character is decisive in differentiating it from many other entities in the
field of knowledge and technology transfer: Steinbeis is independent of public funding
and builds its model on individual initiative, entrepreneurial independence and market
based funding. The foundation with its endowment funds is headed by a board of
trustees and an executive board, which are responsible for the foundation’s strategic
and operative management decisions (Auer 2007: 163ff.; Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.).
While the actual foundation uses its endowment solely for purposes of the so called
―diffuse‖ knowledge and technology transfer, i.e. expert talks, conferences, publications
etc., its subsidiary Steinbeis GmbH & Co. KG (StC) is responsible for all commercial
activities in the field of knowledge and technology transfer under the foundation’s roof.
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 9/20
The StC’s purpose is, therefore, technology transfer via market based projects and via
consultancy services, as well as via the commercialization of own products, as far as
they represent own developments of the foundation or of one of its subsidiaries or
holdings. In addition, the StC is allowed to enter into holdings with similar thematic
purposes and supervises these holding activities (Auer 2007: 167ff.; Steinbeis 2009:
11ff.). With that, the StC is the framework in which the more than 1.000 Steinbeis Units
(SUs) operate in the fields of technology-research-engineering, consulting and
competence (Steinbeis 2014b).
In this context, the area of technology-research-engineering encompasses in particular
market and transfer oriented contract research and technology development, but also
collaborative research and non-profit projects. The consulting area unites competences
in business and strategy consulting, assessment and training. The competences area,
finally, offers education and training in demand-oriented learning models, reaching from
seminars, workshops and in-house-trainings to whole curricula. In addition, the
Steinbeis University Berlin (SHB) offers transfer oriented research as well as extra
occupational and competence oriented education and training via its institutes (STI)
(Steinbeis 2014b; Steinbeis 2013).
This organizational structure offers a broad framework for the actors within the
Steinbeis group: The foundation as a roof embodies the non-profit and solidity based
mission of Steinbeis, while the StC represents itself as a commercial service provider
towards customers and market partners. With the possibility of founding subsidiaries
the StC additionally offers options for realizing spin-offs from the SUs, the
commercialization of self-developed mass products or for technology oriented start-ups
(Auer 2007: 167ff.; Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.).
The decentralized structure and the entrepreneurial philosophy of the Steinbeis group
involve that the headquarters are pointedly slim and focus on strategy development for
the group as a whole, on the provision of the central organizational and liable
framework, on basic support and services for the SUs as well as on compliance with
the firm’s values and philosophy. Centralized regulation, cuts into the entrepreneurial
freedom of the single SU or excessive bureaucracy do, however, not characterize the
Steinbeis model (Auer 2007: 167ff.; Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.; Ortiz 2015).
Concerning the provision of central services Steinbeis headquarters focus e.g. on the
areas of central financial accounting, central payroll accounting, general consultancy
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 10/20
services, communication, founding and support of SUs, coordination, network
management, support of the managing directors, etc. To a growing extent,
headquarters also operate own projects, especially in the area of consultancy services,
training and expert evaluations (Auer 2007: 167ff.; Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.; Ortiz 2015;
Ortiz and Maurer 2014).
3.2 The Steinbeis-Units: Diversity, networking and competence building
The core of the Steinbeis model is represented by its 1.000 SUs with its more than
6.000 experts. These SUs mainly represent decentralized operational units which are
legally dependent on one of the three thematic areas of the StC discussed before.
However, within this legal framework of rules of the game they operate with
entrepreneurial freedom, i.e. they acquire, choose, finance and calculate their projects
autonomously. This stands in the center of the decentralized and entrepreneurial
philosophy behind the Steinbeis model. Project work on all levels regularly bases on an
entrepreneurial calculation at market prices. Customer and supplier of a transfer
service keep their mutual advantage in a market based exchange (Auer 2007: 170f.;
Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.; Ortiz 2015).
Steinbeis receives only very few public funding, so that every single transfer project
must be financed via the market. Since this is only possible through decentralized
entrepreneurial calculations and assessment of the competitive environment by the
single SU, the administrative workload of the headquarters in minimized to services of
framework provision, as discussed before.
In formal terms, a SU is a legally dependent organizational unit of the StC (and with
that also of the Steinbeis Foundation), which is responsible for the operational
realization of projects. These SUs are directed by freelancers (professors or others) or
by employed staff. Also the employees of the SUs are in part freelancers, while others
are employed staff. Generally, this leads to three kinds of contract: Freelancers are
offered a contract as a project manager, in which the internal and external relations are
regulated. Additionally, a contract for SU directors is closed with the SU directors, in
which the internal and external relations are further specified. Finally, the employed
staff is generally offered a fixed term employment contract with the StC (Auer 2007:
170f.; Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.).
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 11/20
The SUs assume the responsibility for the projects, so that the operational competence
and responsibility is delegated from the managing directors of the StC to the SU
directors. The SUs offer concrete solutions and realize these projects on behalf and in
the name of the StC, i.e. the StC (represented by the managing director) is liable
externally. The SU directors have to take care of a balanced annual account. Apart
from that, and within the framework of the internal general terms and conditions, they
autonomously determine their service (supply, prices, etc.) and costs (fees, salaries
and amortizations through investments). Each SU has an own banking account, over
which the SU director and the managing director of the StC can command. The SUs
pay a share of 9% of the reported invoice amounts (excluding sales tax) as a so called
group fee to the StC. This group fee covers the costs for the SU relevant central
services provided by the headquarters as well as for the maintenance and further
development of the organizational framework (Auer 2007: 167ff.; Steinbeis 2009: 11ff.).
3.3 Steinbeis as Market Laboratory and Business Model Incubator
In addition to these formal features, one further aspect must be added: The Steinbeis
group can be described as a strongly differentiated system, in which 20% of the SUs
generate approx. 80% of the total turnover. However, the 80% of SUs accounting for
only 20% of total turnover are a decisive factor of success of this natural pareto-
distribution. The headquarters’ expenses for the founding process and the provision of
the organizational framework often exceed the financial return from the turnover based
group fee (generally 9%) of individual SUs (Auer 2007: 170f.; Ortiz 2015).
Nevertheless, the model proves to be remarkably profitable: The high number of SUs
represents a pool of ideas and business models in knowledge and technology transfer,
in which the most successful approaches prevail in the sense of an opportunity-
oriented, productive and competitive system and, with that, carry the group as a whole.
In this regard, the group works in the sense of a ―market laboratory‖ and provides an
opportunity for persons with their technology transfer approaches to prove themselves
in market competition. Because of the strength of the group as a whole Steinbeis can
take the risk which is connected to these opportunities and regards this strategy as an
investment in perspectively stable knowledge transfer business models (Ortiz 2015).
Altogether, the number of 1.000 SUs acting as enterprises within the enterprise
underlines the model’s attractiveness and still represents the main instrument in
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 12/20
technology transfer with Steinbeis. Their diversity and the broad range of supplied
services are a central differentiating feature of the Steinbeis model and one of its major
USPs (Steinbeis 2014b). The portfolio of services and solutions offered by the group is
encompassing and the single SU can rely on a broad variety of competences and
potential cooperation partners, creating trust and easing project acquisitions. However,
both aspects, the imbalanced structure of SU-performance within the group, as well as
the broad and fragmented supply of services also create specific challenges, which will
be discussed subsequently.
3.4 The Steinbeis Governance Model
In terms of the governance structure that characterizes Steinbeis, the discussion above
clearly shows that Steinbeis is foremost a market and organization driven model. First,
entrepreneurial freedom of the SUs, project acquisitions and calculations at market
conditions as well as profit oriented atomistic competition of business models underline
the market character of the Steinbeis model, where, at the end, knowledge and
technology are bought and sold at market conditions. The central mechanisms in this
regard are the manifold transfer services provided by the SUs like e.g. consultancy and
R&D-services, the services of the private Steinbeis University Berlin, or the buying,
selling and licensing of IPR, etc.
Second, Steinbeis of course also shows elements of organization based governance.
Its organizational structure with the foundation as a roof and the StC as the roof for the
commercial activities evidently stand for hierarchical integration and a certain
coordination through specific formalized as well as informal rights and duties. In this
regard, founding new SUs is in a way a vertical integration of expertise and
technological knowledge into the group in the sense of a business start-up or an
academic spin-off, which is mainly based on a process of transfer of highly qualified
technical and scientific staff into the group.
While Steinbeis is certainly not characterized by state or association based elements of
governance, the model's network and community dimension must be further specified.
Since vertical integration under the roof of Steinbeis is explicitly not strict, but leaves
the individual SUs their entrepreneurial freedom to act among each other and with
external partners without losing their autonomy, and since market transactions are
coupled with a group fee being used to allow for the provision of central network
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 13/20
services for the group as a whole, it does show certain features of reciprocity and, with
that, network based governance. However, as will be shown later, cases of reciprocity
based interaction among single SUs or collaborative R&D-projects are rather rare, and
it is basically the thematic forums and groups which are carried by trust in the fact that
an own input into the group will be compensated at a later point with a more or less
equivalent return. Thus, only to a limited degree Steinbeis can be regarded as a
formalized network of collaborating and cooperating individual actors.
The same holds true for the community dimension of governance: Although the
Steinbeis group exercises a considerable attraction to members and external actors,
and creates a certain desire to belong to the group, not least because of its strong and
successful economic performance and historical tradition, it generates only to a very
limited extent a commonly shared identity among its actors. However, there are
activities within the group basing on informal, voluntary, and sometimes spontaneous
solidarity among the actors, and as a platform and provider of platform activities
Steinbeis certainly promotes knowledge and technology transfer also on the informal
level.
4. Two Challenges: Fragmentation and Imbalance
This model is, as described, strongly entrepreneurial, market-based, organizationally
integrated and dynamically evolving, but also fragmented and imbalanced in its
structure. To face the multiple challenges emerging from the current and future
technological developments, the Steinbeis group currently undertakes several
processes of deep structural reform. The aim of these processes is to secure the fit of
its service portfolio to market demands in the future. In these reform processes,
fragmentation is faced with strategies of stronger coordination and networking
activities, and imbalance is approached with strategies of competence building through
providing central services and tools to the actors within and outside the group.
Let us start with the aspect of fragmentation. 1.000 SUs within the Steinbeis group
mean a portfolio of 1.000 service providers. The range of these services covers almost
all possible thematic fields in the areas of research, technology development,
engineering and business administration. However, we are currently facing a time of
more and more interconnected rather than fragmented technological development,
mostly occurring at the interfaces of branches, disciplines and technologies. Since the
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 14/20
substantial technological challenges of the present in the fields of mobility, energy, ICT
and health are strongly cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral in their character, it is to
fear that the current service portfolio of individual SUs will in many cases not match the
future market demand anymore, neither in scope, nor in scale. Therefore, the challenge
for Steinbeis is to further connect its competences around strategically important and
interdisciplinary topics to allow the SUs to also acquire technology transfer projects
requiring a larger scope of competences and thematic expertise as well as larger scale
resources.
From a comparative perspective, this supposed disadvantage of fragmentation, could,
though, be regarded as specific strength of the Steinbeis group, since other actors in
the field of knowledge and technology transfer might not have a comparably broad and
rich basis of expertise to work with. Even more, if Steinbeis could succeed not only in
creating and coordinating groups and collaborations of SUs around strategically
important topics, but also in flexibly combining and re-combining these competences
under conditions of dynamically changing technological demand, it could certainly gain
substantial competitive edges.
Imbalance, i.e. the pareto-distribution of performance among the 1.000 SUs (20% of
them account for 80% of total turnover, the other 80% only for 20%), on the other hand,
might indeed be a fruitful breeding ground for the incubation of successful and
sustainable ideas, business and service models in knowledge and technology transfer
in the sense of a ―market laboratory‖. However, and taking the effort for founding,
administrating and coordinating the SUs into account, one might expect considerable
leverage effects when contributing to the professionalization of the service provision by
the single units. And this is especially important, since the field of knowledge and
technology transfer has strongly moved forward from approaches of just bringing actors
together and creating certain framework conditions in which transfer processes can
occur.
Rather, the general trend of the past decade clearly is towards a stronger
professionalization of both actors and approaches, especially with regard to the
provision of structured, elaborated and qualitatively weighted strategy concepts,
mechanisms, tools and instruments. Therefore, the challenge for Steinbeis in this
regard is to secure and even improve the quality of its services through the whole
portfolio. Here, one could think of the development of certification processes for the
SUs operating within the group, structured strategy impulses provided by headquarters,
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 15/20
which would act as a "think tank" in this regard, as well as of elaborated and advanced
central tools and instruments developed by headquarters or individual SUs to be
diffused into the group as a whole.
In sum, these challenges point to the fact that Steinbeis, like all other governance
systems, is a dynamically learning system, which is continuously adapting its
governance structures to current market developments and processes of structural
change. This is manifested in several processes of structural reform, which have
recently been undertaken to approach these challenges. In the two following sections,
therefore, two exemplary projects will be discussed, which explicitly intent to address
fragmentation and imbalance within the Steinbeis governance model.
5. Leveraging Expertise and Creating Platforms: The Steinbeis Enterprise
Competence Check
One of the projects with which Steinbeis faces fragmentation and imbalance is the
Steinbeis Enterprise Competence Check (UKC). The UKC is a tool for the software
based analysis of enterprise competences, mainly in the area of consultancy services
(Ortiz and Maurer 2014). It foremost addresses consultants within but also outside the
Steinbeis group. With this tool, on the one hand, Steinbeis headquarters for the first
time developes an own product to bring it to the market and diffuse it into the group.
While in the past some single SUs already worked with different tools and, therefore,
different approaches to analyze enterprise competences, with this tool, headquarters
now provide a framework in which activities in the field competence analysis within the
Steinbeis group can be systematically coordinated. Although this also contains some
elements of a centralization, the intention is foremost to create a platform to which
further, individual approaches and tools can be connected on a solid base. The aim is
to bring together all actors within the group concerned with this strategically important
topic of enterprise competences, creating with that an encompassing service supply in
the field.
Many important effects accompany this project. The first is that fragmented approaches
and tools for competence analysis within the group in the past led to confusion on
which approach would be the Steinbeis-approach and made it hard for both SUs and
customers to recognize which approach to use. With the UKC as a central platform,
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 16/20
there will be one single point of access to the expertise in the field of competence
analysis within the group easing with that the access to the group’s service portfolio.
Moreover, also the quality of the tools used so far in terms of both contents and
methods was not entirely satisfactory. The UKC, therefore, also contributes to a
substantial professionalization in the field of competence analysis by explicitly
addressing and overcoming these shortcomings. In addition, through providing this tool
to all SUs Steinbeis proliferates to the group a new and professionalized approach,
which, in its thematic scope, methodic elaborateness and analytical depth represents a
new level of service provision for a large number of SUs. That is why the introduction of
the tool will also be accompanied by intensive training activities in the use of the tool for
all the SUs willing to apply it. One could also think of a certification process at the end
of these trainings identifying SUs as certified UKC competence consultants or trainers.
With regard to fragmentation, the UKC will also be used as a networking tool. For each
of the eight thematic dimensions of enterprise competences differentiated by the tool
(Ortiz and Maurer 2014), one so called consulting group will be constituted, in which
experts for the respective fields will further develop application strategies, new and
more differentiated analysis tools, training curricula as well as business models. The
aim is to connect a substantial share of SUs around these eight dimensions, not only to
create topic specific pools of expertise within the group, but also to enhance networking
and collaboration among the SUs. This shall ease the accessibility of the Steinbeis
service portfolio for customers and external partners, as well as the scope and scale of
the provided services.
6. Regional Networking and Coordinated Transfer Activities: Joint Transfer
Corporations with Universities
A second project addressing the challenges of fragmentation and imbalance focuses
on the creation and management of joint transfer corporations with universities
(―Transfergesellschaften an den Hochschulen‖; H-Trans). Within this project, Steinbeis
creates new corporations together with universities at specific university locations
within Baden-Württemberg to better coordinate and bundle the activities of the SUs
around particular universities (Steinbeis 2013: 38). In this context, the H-Trans operate
like local roof-organizations at the universities under which all newly founded and many
established SUs at the respective universities are grouped. In this model, the
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 17/20
universities are involved as business partners, including revenues, while Steinbeis is
secured exclusivity rights in organizing the university’s transfer activities.
The effect is twofold: On the one hand, these corporations allow for a better
coordination of the transfer activities of the SUs on the local and regional level, and
therefore, to overcome fragmentation of transfer activities even within one and the
same university or region. In addition, also cooperation with the business sector is
eased, since the accessibility of the transfer services at the universities is relieved and
joint marketing activities can be realized. On the basis of joint events and conferences
intensified networking activities in spatial proximity are fostered, not only among SUs
and their customers and potential business partners, but also among the local SUs
themselves.
Through these coordination and networking processes, on the other hand, the H-Trans
might also allow for acquiring projects with a higher scope, both in terms of expertise
and resources. With the bundling effect, moreover, an intensified strategic orientation
and management of the single SUs is possible, with impulses coming from both
partners, the universities and Steinbeis headquarters. This allows for developing a
much more fitted supply of services and expertise by taking into account the
particularities of the respective regions. Altogether, a certain leverage effect can be
expected to result from these activities, helping to attenuate structures of imbalance
among the SUs within particular regions.
7. Conclusion
Altogether, it has been shown that particular knowledge and technology transfer
systems can be investigated on the basis of a heuristic governance model
differentiating between the six dimensions of social and economic governance: state,
market, organization, network, association and community. This model has then been
applied to the Steinbeis model of knowledge and technology transfer. As has been
demonstrated, this model is a specific institutional configuration in between atomistic
market competition and vertical organizational integration. In providing the
organizational framework for the highly diverse entrepreneurial activities of individual
SUs, it exercises an decisive function as business model incubator and market
laboratory in the regional and national innovation systems it is operating in. While the
model is certainly not characterized by state or association based dimensions of
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 18/20
governance, it indeed shows elements of network and community related structures
and mechanisms of governance, which might be to extend with regard to pending
reform processes in the light of current market developments.
As has been discussed, these challenges consist above all in the fragmentation of the
service portfolio offered by Steinbeis and in the imbalance of performance within the
group. Since the present and future market environment and technological
development requires more and more interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral and
encompassing expertise and solutions, as well as a continuously rising degree of
professionalization in service provision, Steinbeis has to move stronger than before
towards a strategic networking and coordination as well as towards a stronger
professionalization of its service portfolio and provision.
In facing these challenges, Steinbeis is recently undergoing an intensive reform
process. Two exemplary projects have been discussed in detail, which demonstrate the
direction these reform processes take: With the UKC a thematic platform will be
generated, which will bundle and coordinate competences within the group around the
thematic dimensions of the tool. Not only will this contribute to a stronger networking
and cooperation between single SUs within the group, the tool per se will also generally
leverage the service quality in the fields of competence development and business
consultancy. With the second project, the joint transfer corporations with universities
(H-Trans), Steinbeis is bundling its expertise and service portfolio on the local and
regional levels around particular university locations. The effect is a better strategic
coordination around the H-Trans allowing for service provision on a higher scope, scale
and quality.
In sum, Steinbeis has been discussed as a unique governance model still exercising a
strong attractiveness for both service suppliers and customers, as well as a model of
good practice in the field of knowledge and technology transfer. Its central
differentiating assets, like organizationally integrated entrepreneurial activities,
atomistic competition and fragmented service provision must, however, continuously be
reinvented and adapted to actual market developments. The discussed exemplary
projects are important elements of the corresponding reform processes, which are, yet,
much more encompassing than could be described within this paper and will affect
wider parts of the Steinbeis model.
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 19/20
However, the direction of these reform processes is already indicated by the two
presented project examples: The strong market dimension will surely be complemented
by stronger elements of organizational integration, especially with regard to central
strategy development, as would be a "think-tank-function" and fostered coordination
activities. As has been shown, the described challenges also imply a strengthening of
the model's network dimension, which, at the end, will require a certain cultural and
mental shift within the group from atomistic competition to reciprocity in cooperation.
But also the community dimension should be strengthened more than in the past. The
added value of belonging to a group of 1.000 agents in knowledge and technology
transfer under the roof of the highly renowned Steinbeis label could certainly be a good
basis for generating this community dimension, supplemented by a successful history
of transfer projects and a commonly shared philosophy and culture of free and
entrepreneurial transfer activities.
References:
Acs, Zoltan J., Felix R. Fitzroy and Ian Smith (1999): High Technology Employment, Wages and
University R&D Spillovers. Evidence from US Cities. In: R. Henderson and A. Jaffe (eds.): Economics of
Innovation and New Technology 8, Special Issue on R&D Spillovers: 57–78.
Archibugi, Daniele, Jeremy Howells and Jonathan Michie (1999): Innovation Systems in a Global
Economy. In: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 11 (4): 527–539.
Archibugi, Daniele and Simona Iammarino (2010): The Globalization of Technology and National
Policies. In: Archibugi, Daniele and Lundvall, Bengt-Åke (eds.): The Globalizing Learning Economy. Oxford
University Press, Oxford: 111–126.
Audretsch, David B. and Erik E. Lehmann (2005): Does the Knowledge Spillover Theory of
Entrepreneurship Hold for Regions? In: Research Policy 34: 1191–1202.
Auer, Michael (2007): Transferunternehmertum. Erfolgreiche Organisation des Technologietransfers.
Stuttgart: Steinbeis-Edition.
Beise, Marian, Georg Licht, Georg and Albrecht Spielkamp (1995): Technologietransfer an kleine und
mittlere Unternehmen, Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Braczyk, Hans-Joachim, Philip Cooke and Martin Heidenreich (eds.) (1998): Regional Innovation
Systems. London: UCL-Press.
Cooke, Philip, Martin Heidenreich and Hans-Joachim Braczyk (eds.) (2004): Regional Innovation
Systems (2nd edition). London; New York: Routledge.
Edquist, Charles (2005): Systems of Innovation. Perspectives and Challenges. In: Fagerberg, Jan, David
C. Mowery and Richard R. Nelson (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford/New York: Oxford
University Press.
174768-2015-03-22-d-moz-Artikel StW IRSPM ©‘ 2015 Dr. Michael Ortiz 20/20
Fuchs, Gerhard and Sandra Wassermann (2004): The Regional Innovation System of Baden-
Württemberg. Lock-In or Breakthrough? Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Risiko- und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung.
Stuttgart: Institut für Sozialwissenschaften; Abt. für Technik- und Umweltsoziologie; Universität Stuttgart.
Heidenreich, Martin and Gerhard Krauss (2004): The Production and Innovation Regime of Baden-
Württemberg. Between Past Successes and New Challenges. In: Cooke, Philip, Martin Heidenreich and
Hans-Joachim Braczyk (eds.): Regional Innovation Systems. The Role of Governance in a Globalized
World (2nd edition). London/New York: Routledge: 186–213.
Heidenreich, Martin (2001): Regionale Innovationssysteme. Zwischen Wandel und Beharrung. In: Fuchs,
Gerhard and Karin Töpsch (eds.): Baden-Württemberg—Erneuerung einer Industrieregion. Stuttgart:
Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung: 87–106.
Hollingsworth, J. Rogers, Philippe C. Schmitter and Wolfgang Streeck (1994): Governing Capitalist
Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krauss, Gerhard (2009): Baden-Württemberg als Prototyp eines regionalen Innovationssystems. In:
Blättel-Mink, Birgit and Alexander Ebner: Innovationssysteme. Technologie, Institutionen und die Dynamik
der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Wiesbaden: VS.
Ortiz, Michael (2013): Varieties of Innovation Systems - The Governance of Knowledge Transfer in
Europe. Frankfurt/Main, New York: Campus.
Ortiz, Michael and Katharina Maurer (2014): Organisationale Fähigkeiten und ganzheitliche
Kompetenzmessung. Der Steinbeis Unternehmens-Kompetenzcheck. Stuttgart: Steinbeis Edition.
Ortiz, Michael (forthcoming 2015): Das Steinbeis-Modell des Technologietransfers in Baden-
Württemberg. In: Steinbeis Stiftung and BioPro Baden-Württemberg (Hg.): Best Practice im
Technologietransfer von Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart: Steinbeis Edition.
Scharpf, Fritz W. (2011): Monetary Union, Fiscal Crisis and the Preemption of Democracy. MPIfG
Discussion Paper 11/11. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne.
Steinbeis-Stiftung (2014a): http://www.steinbeis.de/tta [last access: 2014-10-22].
Steinbeis-Stiftung (2014b): http://www.steinbeis.de [last access: 2014-10-22].
Steinbeis Stiftung (2013): Steinbeis 1983-2013. 30 Jahre. Stuttgart: Steinbeis Edition.
Steinbeis Stiftung (2009): Steinbeis 1983-2008. Stuttgart: Steinbeis Edition.
Streeck, Wolfgang (2013): Gekaufte Zeit. Die vertagte Krise des demokratischen Kapitalismus. Berlin:
Suhrkamp.
Streeck, Wolfgang (2004): Globalisierung. Mythos und Wirklichkeit. MPIfG Working Paper 04/4. Max
Planck Institute for the Study of Societies: Cologne.
Thommen, Jean-Paul and Ann-Kristin Achleitner (2012): Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
Umfassende Einführung aus managementorientierter Sicht. 7. Auflage. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Thommen, Jean-Paul (2003): Glaubwürdigkeit und Corporate Governance. Zürich: Versus
Voelzkow, Helmut, with Elbing, Sabine and Martin Schröder (2007): Jenseits nationaler
Produktionsmodelle? Die Governance regionaler Wirtschaftscluster. International vergleichende Analysen.
Marburg: Metropolis.