Knowledge Management Research & Practice

ISSN: 1477-8238 (Print) 1477-8246 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tkmr20

The knowledge transfer and cooperation between

universities and enterprises

Sérgio Jesus Teixeira, Pedro Mota Veiga & Cristina Abreu Fernandes

To cite this article: Sérgio Jesus Teixeira, Pedro Mota Veiga & Cristina Abreu Fernandes (2019):
The knowledge transfer and cooperation between universities and enterprises, Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, DOI: 10.1080/14778238.2018.1561166

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1561166

Published online: 08 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tkmr20
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE
https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1561166

The knowledge transfer and cooperation between universities and

enterprises
Sérgio Jesus Teixeiraa,b, Pedro Mota Veigab,c and Cristina Abreu Fernandesb,d
a
School of Technology and Management, Management University of Madeira, Madeira, Portugal; bNECE Research Unit, Covilhã, Portugal;
c
Escola Superior de Educação de Viseu, Instituto Politécnico de Viseu e Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Porto, Portugal; dDepartment of
Management and Economics, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Knowledge and its transference are increasingly viewed as key factors of companies’ compe- Received 15 September 2018
titiveness. In this sense, our research aims to analyze how the knowledge transfer takes place Revised 26 October 2018
between the higher education sector and the companies. In order to achieve the objectives of Accepted 14 December 2018
the study, a questionnaire was administered through a telephone interview to 500 compa- KEYWORDS
nies, distributed throughout Portugal. The empirical results show there is cooperation Knowledge transfer;
between companies and institutions of higher education when entrepreneurs are younger, cooperation; universities;
and companies are located in urban areas such as Lisbon. This cooperation, which translates businessman profile;
into the knowledge transfer, is conducive to greater innovation as well as greater financial location in urban
performance. environment; innovative
capability; business
performance

1. Introduction and services without establishing cooperation agree-

ments for innovation with other organizations and
Knowledge is generated with the aim of contributing to
institutions (Stejskal, Meričková, & Prokop, 2016).
and assisting the development of populations, improv-
Despite the importance of the management and knowl-
ing their competitiveness and increasing their value
edge transfer in organizations, few studies have been
(Firlej & Żmija, 2017; García-Almeida & Klassen,
carried out within the scope of the cooperation relation-
2017; Liu, 2018).
ship between universities and companies (Rodríguez-
This need is due to the fact that the market economy
Gómez & Gairín, 2015).
starts to demand more and more rules, due to economic
The existence of universities undoubtedly increases
categories such as competition, efficiency, and profit-
competitiveness and fosters entrepreneurial activity and
ability (Firlej, 2012).
regional growth. However, there is little evidence on the
The importance of the knowledge transfer, of
impacts of entrepreneurial activity and the existence of
cooperation between companies and universities, is
cooperation between firms and universities (Audretsch
a great value due to the valuable contribution to
et al., 2012). In addition, almost no empirical research
global development and competitiveness (Fernandes
relates the dynamic, formal or informal relationship
& Ferreira, 2013; Kaiser, Kansy, Mueller-Seitz, &
between the entrepreneur’s profile and location as
Ringlstetter, 2009; Venkitachalam & Ambrosini,
a factor of innovative knowledge and entrepreneurial
2017; Wei & Miraglia, 2017). This development, in
performance (Azagra-Caro, Barberá-Tomas, Edwards-
which the production, absorption, acquisition, repro-
Schachter, & Tur, 2017). The great contribution of this
duction and knowledge transfer are seen as funda-
study and the value we offer is represented by the wide
mental characteristics of the competitive dynamics,
range of services offered by companies that fill the gap
(Audretsch, Hülsbeck, & Lehmann, 2012; Jones,
in specific intellectual knowledge (Villani, Rasmussen,
Corral, & Zubielqui, 2017). It is to be expected that
& Grimaldi, 2017).
studies of the creative industries tend to align with
Therefore, the objective of this research is to fill this
approaches that discuss the entrepreneur profile,
gap in the literature, examining factors that may affect
behavior, location of firms and talents. Acording to
the processes and relations of knowledge transfer and
He and Huang (2018) innovative activities and the
cooperation between companies and universities, such
largest market share are located in urban areas.
as entrepreneur profile and urban location. From here
There are studies that show that the relationship
arise our research questions: What are the character-
between innovation and cooperation is not direct and
istics of entrepreneurs and companies that promote
that most companies develop their products, processes,
knowledge transfer and innovation activities? What is

CONTACT Sérgio Jesus Teixeira. jesusteixeira1984@gmail.com Economics and Management, Universidade da Madeira, Rua dos Ferreiros,
Colégio dos Jesuítas, Funchal, Funchal, 9000-082 Portugal
© 2018 Operational Research Society
2 S. J. TEIXEIRA ET AL.
the impact of knowledge transfer on innovation and
business performance activities?
This article is structured as follows. The next section
analyzes and discusses the concepts of entrepreneur
profile, knowledge transfer, cooperation between com-
panies and universities, innovative capacity and busi-
ness performance. The third section describes the
methodology and methods used in data collection and
processing. The fourth section presents the main results
of the study. The final section reflects the main conclu-
sions of the study, as well as the implications and points
out some suggestions for future research.
2. Literature review
2.1. Knowledge transfer, universities and
business cooperation
The knowledge transfer can be understood as
a voluntary and conscious act between individuals and
organizations and results in the joint acquisition of
intellectual property between the source and the recipi-
ent (Del Giudice, Carayannis, & Maggioni, 2017;
Franco & Pinho, in press; Fukugawa, 2016, Liu, 2018;
Rossi, Rosli, & Yip, 2017, Villani et al., 2017; Zheng &
Hu, 2018).
An organization needs to create, share, and leverage
sources of information and knowledge acquisition to
successfully carry out its activities. For many times, the
problem is not the scarcity of knowledge, but rather
the way in which this information and knowledge are
disseminated throughout the organization (Palvalin,
Vuori, & Helander, 2018). Knowledge is, however,
a resource that companies essentially integrate. This
individual knowledge of products or services, in
a multifunctional environment, requires the sharing
of knowledge learned (Aydin & Dube, 2018).
The knowledge transfer must be carried out not
only by transferring a part of the knowledge from one
collaborator to another, but it must rather support
and nurture a joint process of creativity. Generally,
this knowledge exchange is composed of knowledge-
intensive companies, such as universities (Castellano,
Davidson, & Khelladi, 2017). Some previous studies
have attempted to differentiate the knowledge trans-
fer and technology (Boumarafi & Jabnoun, 2008;
Castellano et al., 2017; Feng, Duan, Fu, & Mathews,
2009; Nonaka & Toyama, 2003; Secundo, De Beer,
Schutte, & Passiante, 2017; Tizkar Sadabadi & Abdul
Manaf, 2018).
Still, some authors argue that the knowledge trans-
fer refers to a much more limited set of activities than
the knowledge transfer. The technology refers to tools
to change the environment, while knowledge incorpo-
rates theories and principles that help to understand
the relationship between causes and effects. Knowledge
as a resource and an organizational asset is
a recognized source that distinguishes business com-
petitiveness. However, this organizational knowledge
is often diffused, intangible and ambiguous, which
may in a way restrict the formal strategies of knowl-
edge management (Atherton, 2013; Grillo, Ferreira,
Marques, & Ferreira, 2018).
Cooperation between firms and universities plays
a particularly important role in low-tech countries and
industry (Abbas, Avdic, Xiaobao, Hasan, & Ming, in
press; Arvanitis, Sydow, & Woerter, 2008). University-
company collaboration is an important method because
it allows exploring and proving the innovative knowl-
edge transfer (Aristei, Vecchi, & Venturini, 2016; Un,
Cuervo-Cazurra, & Asakawa, 2010). In this sense, coop-
eration agreements have become important as regards
the costs of innovation, since they are a great barrier to
innovation, but they are not risks of innovation.
Appropriability strategies do not seem to be relevant
to research and development cooperation with univer-
sities (Arvanitis, Kubli, & Woerter, 2011).
This leads to the importance of entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurs being a source of social and entrepre-
neurial innovations, which imply radical changes and
has been widely recognized since a long time (Iorio,
Labory, & Rentocchini, 2017; Timmermans, Van Der
Heiden, & Born, Van Looy et al., 2011). It is a distinct
and critical professional factor for business success,
both for the creation of new jobs, as a way of devel-
opment (Cañete, 2018; Krstić, Mirić, & Rakić, 2017,
Langer & Macuare, 2016, Timmermans, Van Der
Heiden, & Born, 2014).
For, it is expected that an entrepreneur can encourage
employees to adopt a high-learning orientation profile,
aiming at a high-performance orientation (Kunst, van
Woerkom, van Kollenburg, & Poell, 2018).
In an attempt to find the right profiles, entrepre-
neurs were challenged not only by lack of financial
resources as well as limited knowledge of selection
practices (Ljhtinen, 2007; Munjal, Requejo, & Kundu,
in press).
Thus, those responsible were forced to look for can-
didates, who could help find people with the right pro-
files and according to the business context, in order to
find a viable way to the cooperation agreements despite
some financial limitation (Buffa, 2015; Klada, 2018).
The knowledge and dynamics of business profiles
in complex territorial systems also play an important
role in decision-making and it is reflected in sustain-
able business development (Radu-Daniel, Daniel,
Cristian, Irina, & Daniela-Rodica, 2015).
Some specific sectors of the urban economy, such
as services, have faced rapid changes in recent dec-
ades. It was verified that urban growth has signifi-
cance in population growth and economic activities
(Santoro & Gopalakrishnan, 2000). The notion of
urban expansion refers essentially to activities in the
urban environment (Koľveková & Palaščáková, 2017).

The idea of introducing urban business zones is
understood to guide small firms and concentrate tax
incentives on wages taxes, labor cost reductions, and
has an almost immediate impact on firms’ cash flows
(Givord, Quantin, & Trevien, 2018).
In this sense, some programs aim to encourage the
implementation and location of companies in urban
neighborhoods in order to reduce unemployment and
improve the well-being of the population (Mayer,
Mayneris, & Py, 2017).
In some countries, most large companies are located
around or within urban economic centers. In turn,
small and medium-sized enterprises are found in rural
areas or on the outskirts of urban areas, which can
sometimes be costly for these small and medium-sized
enterprises located far from the main urban centers
(Bhabra & Hossain, 2018).
Small companies, for example, are vehicles that are
smaller but can have a great impact on people’s daily
lives and the urban environment, and where these same
companies can have significant economic benefits
because they are located in urban areas (Miwa & Bell,
2017). Another issue is the organizational capacity per-
spective often underlies innovative capabilities
(Anning-Dorson, Hinson, Amidu, & Nyamekye, 2018;
Thomas et al., 2017).
It can be seen that innovative capacity has been
understood as one of the constituent characteristics
or similarities of dynamic capacities, and consists of
innovation and creation of processes, behaviors, mar-
kets, products, technologies, and strategies to cope
with the evolution of competition (Bhupendra &
Sangle, 2015).
To address the complexity of the innovative envir-
onment, organizations have sought ways to make
sustainability dynamic, integrated as business strate-
gies and models, where sustainability must be part of
the strategy as an innovative competitive factor of
adaptation and resilience (Amui, Jabbour, de Sousa
Jabbour, & Kannan, 2017).
In this sense, the capacity of a company to achieve
and grow successfully is influenced by many factors
and by its innovative capacity, where intellectual
capital is one of these strategic management factors
(Gomezelj Omerzel & Smolčić Jurdana, 2016).
The ability to innovate refers to the successful adop-
tion or implementation of new ideas, products or pro-
cesses. The innovative capacity and performance of
a company depend heavily on the intellectual capital it
possesses (Gomezelj Omerzel & Smolčić Jurdana, 2016).
Different studies define innovation in a variety of ways,
most of which focus on improving or modernizing tech-
nology, or reforming and developing products (Liao, Hu,
Chen, & Lin, 2015).
Innovation is understood as: (1) the ability to
develop products to meet market needs, (2) the ability
to use existing technology to develop products, (3) the
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 3
ability to develop new products or update products as
needed and (4) the ability to acquire new technologies
to create new opportunities (Adler & Shenha, 1990).
Some authors argue that innovation is one of the main
drivers of business growth and expansion, as it allows
companies to develop their dynamic capabilities,
becoming more adaptable and developing capabilities
to explore new ideas and resources (Grillo et al., 2018;
Scuotto, Del Giudice, Bresciani, & Meissner, 2017;
Yang, Zhang, & Ding, 2015; Zhao & Zeng, 2011).
Other studies mention those information technolo-
gies are positively related to the production of knowl-
edge, which is fundamental to the capacity for
innovation. Because information technologies support
and aggregate information, integration, transformation
and exploitation of knowledge, thus improving an
organization’s capabilities to improve its processes
and products (Bekkers, Maria, & Freitas, 2008; Zhang
& Hartley, 2018).
Due to the increasing global competitive pressures,
companies have been forced to adopt, develop and
innovate continuously to increase their competitive-
ness of products.
For these reasons, companies should upgrade their
innovation capacity to develop and market new tech-
nologies faster than competing enterprises and should
facilitate the creation and dissemination of innovative
capabilities within organizations in order to strengthen
their competitive advantage (Liao et al., 2015).
Over the last few years, several scholars in the area
of strategy have approached in an attempt to under-
stand the determinants of company’s performance in
order to answer fundamental questions about how
companies differ and why they perform differently
(Nair, Nisar, Palacios, & Ruiz, 2012).
Some evidence of a company’s innovation perfor-
mance has been linked to knowledge management
capacity, corporate capacity, and operational perfor-
mance, and it has been discussed over the years by
some academics (Guzzini & Iacobucci, 2017; Thomas
et al., 2017, Yang & Cai, 2016).
The business world is facing a shift from labor-
based industries to knowledge-based industries where
skills and know-how stand out as sources of long-term
competitive advantage (Boumarafi & Jabnoun, 2008).
Another factor, innovation activity can influence
the competitiveness and, consequently, the perfor-
mance of a company (Gomezelj Omerzel & Smolčić
Jurdana, 2016).
The performance of technology transfer between
universities and companies, for example, has been
historically evaluated through quantitative measures
(Jefferson, Maida, Farkas, Alandete-Saez, &
Bennett, 2017).
Several business models have had a profound
influence on the company’s performance among
industries, trying to find new ways of doing business
4 S. J. TEIXEIRA ET AL.

that face the competition, allowing these rules to lead
to new business performance development models
(Nair et al., 2012).
Some studies, for example, discuss relationships
between markets and research in business performance,
emphasizing a link between knowledge creation and
intelligence and good decisions. The knowledge received
by these companies may have little or no cost and can be
used to significantly improve business performance
(Raguragavan Ganeshasundaram, 2007).
Based on the substantiated importance of some
proactive elements and in the context of market-
oriented research, they generally adopt an analysis of
the effects of this orientation and how it affects business
performance when strategic proactivity is taken into
account (Hughes, 2008).
3. Methodology
3.1. Data
In order to achieve the objectives of the study,
a survey was administered through a telephone sur-
vey to 500 companies, distributed in intensive knowl-
edge services (65.6%, 328) and technological (34.4%,
172) distributed (84.6%), and the most frequent
(84%), and the most frequent are located in
Portugal (North – 24.6%, Center – 31.6%, Lisbon –
20.6%, Alentejo – 4%, 407) in an urban setting. It
should be noted that 15.8% of the companies sur-
veyed reported the company’s cooperation with uni-
versities in order to transfer knowledge.
As to the socio-professional characteristics of the
entrepreneur or the firm (Table 1), on average they
were 42.1 ± 8.0 years old (AGE), 85.4% had higher
education (UNI) and 76.9% were male. In terms of
the characteristics of the companies, an average of
4.7 ± 7.5 workers (LAB), 81.4% were located in urban
areas (URB), 34.4% were KIBS Technological
(TECH), 31.6% were located in the Centro Region,
24.6% in the North Region and 20.6% in the Lisbon
Region. With regard to Knowledge Transfer (KT),
15.8% cited the company’s cooperation with univer-
sities, 47.2% did not mention the implementation of
any innovation in 2016 and 1.2% implemented three
innovations (INNOV). these proportions 93.4% and
1.0%, respectively, for patent applications (PAT). As
regards turnover in 2016 (PERF), 32.8% had
a turnover of less than € 50,000, 24.0% and 19.0%
between € 50,000 and € 100,000 and between €
100,000 and € 200,000 respectively, and 8.8% had
a turnover exceeding € 500,000.

Table 1. Sample characterization.

N %
UNI No Higher academic education 73 14.6%
Higher academic education 427 85.4%
MALE Female 115 23.1%
Male 383 76.9%
URB Rural 93 18.6%
Urban 407 81.4%
TECHN Profissional 328 65.6%
Technological 172 34.4%
AGE 42.1 ± 8.0
LAB 4.7 ± 7.5
Region North 123 24.6%
Center 158 31.6%
Lisbon 103 20.6%
Alentejo 41 8.2%
Algarve 25 5.0%
Madeira 17 3.4%
Açores 33 6.6%
KT No 421 84.2%
Yes 79 15.8%
INNOV 0 236 47.2%
1 147 29.4%
2 111 22.2%
3 6 1.2%
PAT 0 467 93.4%
1 20 4.0%
2 8 1.6%
3 5 1.0%
PERF Less than 50.000€ 164 32.8%
From 50.000€ to 100.000€ 120 24.0%
From 100.000 to 200.000€ 95 19.0%
From 200.000€ to 300.000€ 42 8.4%
From 300.000€ to 400.000€ 22 4.4%
From 400.000€ to 500.000€ 13 2.6%
More than 500.000€ 44 8.8%
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 5

Table 2. Variables used in the analysis. 4.4. Innovative capacity

Variable Units
Businessman Entrepreneur. Age/ Years
In order to evaluate the innovative capacity of the com-
Profile manager (AGE) panies included in the study, it was inquired about the
Entrepreneur/manger No; Yes Number of Innovations in the Product/Service or in the
with university
education (UNI) Process and the Number of Patent Applications
Female Entrepreneur/ No; Yes submitted.
Manger (FEM)
Firms Profile Technolocial KIBS No; Yes
(TECHN)
Company age (ANT) Years
Number of employees in Number 4.5. Performance
2016 (LAB)
Proportion of employees Percent In Table 2, we have all variables used in this analysis.
with higher education The performance was evaluated through the Turnover
(HIGH)
Located in urban areas No; Yes in 2016 (<50,000 €, 50,000 € – 100,000 €, 100,000–-
(URB) 200,000 €, 200,000 € – 300,000 €, 300,000 € – 400,000
Located in the Lisbon No; Yes
Region (LIS)
€, 400,000 € – 500,000 €,> 500,000 €).
Cooperation of the company with No; Yes
universities in order to knowldge
transfer (KT)
Innovative Number of Innovations Likert scale: 1–7 5. Results
Capacity in the Product/Service
or Process (INNOV) 5.1. Data analysis
Number of patent Likert scale: 1–7
applications To characterize the sample under study, the descrip-
submitted (PAT)
Turnover 2016 (PERF) (< 50.000€, 50.000€ – tive statistics (means and standard deviations) of the
100.000€, variables included in the study, as well as the respective
100.000–200.000€,
200.000€ – 300.000€,
correlations, were determined.
300.000€ – 400.000€, With regard to the modeling of the variables that
400.000€ – 500.000€, > influence the company’s cooperation with universi-
500.000€
ties, it was used binary regression based on logistic
distribution, because the dependent variable is a case
of binary outcomes. The logistic model is the natural
model as it corresponds to use of the canonical link
The data obtained were treated with IBM SPSS soft- to binomial distribution, and another attraction is
ware version 25.0 (IBM Corporation, New York, USA). the interpretation of coefficients in termos of odds
ratio (Cameron & Trivedi, 2005).
The function used in logistic regression to esti-
4. Measures mate the probability of a given j (j = 1, . . ., n) of
4.1. Businessman profile the dependent variable to have “success”, that is, of
companies adopting new digital processes l
The variables related to the profile of the entrepre-

ðP Yj ¼ 1 ¼ π ^j ), can be expressed by: π ^ ¼ 1þe
eXβ
Xβ ,
neur were Age (in years), Education level (Basic or
Secondary vs. Superior) and Gender (Male vs. onde π ^ is the vector of estimated probabilities,
Female). X is the matrix of independent variables and β is
the vector of logistic regression coefficients
(Cameron & Trivedi, 2005). As logistic model it
4.2. Firms profile was used the Odds Ratio (OR).
Linearizing this function with the logit transformation
In terms of variables related to the characteristics of the of the dependent variable yields the logistic regression
company, it was used the type (Professional vs. econometric model under analysis, and the three models
Technological), Seniority (in years), Number of employ- are estimated:
ees in 2016, Proportion of employees with higher edu-  
cation (in percentage) and Business location vs Urban, (I) Logit KTc j = β0 + β1AGEj + β2UNIj +
Lisbon vs Other regions).
β3MALE
 j 
c j = β0 + β1URBj + β2TECHNj +
(II) Logit KT
4.3. Universities and business cooperation β3ANT β4LABJ + β5HIGHj + β6LISj
j + 
c j = β0 + β1AGEj + β2UNIj +
(III) Logit KT
The questionnaire applied contained a question concern-
ing the existence of cooperation of the company with β3MALEj + β4URBj + β5TECHNj + β6ANTj
universities in order to transfer knowledge (No vs Yes). + β7LABJ + β8HIGHj + β9LISj
6 S. J. TEIXEIRA ET AL.

In the models carried out in order to determine the 6. Results

impact of the characteristics of the entrepreneur and
the company and the cooperation with universities in
the innovative capacity (Number of innovations pro-
ducts/services and processes and Number of patents),
corresponding to discrete counting variables (non nega-
tive integer), were used count data regression models
(Cameron & Trivedi, 2005). The Poisson model was
selected over the negative binomial model because over-
dispersion and underdispersion were not found. To
evaluate overdispersion and underdispersion we
divided the value of the Pearson goodness-of-fit statistic
by the degrees of freedom of the models and these values
were closeness to 1 (Puig & Valero, 2006). The Poisson
distribution for determining the probability of events
μ y
occurring over a period of time is PðY ¼ y=xÞ ¼ e y!μ ,
where µ corresponds to the average rate of the process.
The Poisson regression is derived from the Poisson
distribution through a reparameterization of the rela-
tionship between the mean µ and the regressors x, being
estimated as the four models for each variable of the
innovative capacity:
In terms of the econometric modeling of the com-
pany’s Performance, measured by Turnover, it was
used the ordinal regression since it was a variable
with natural ordering alternatives (<50,000 €, 50,000
€ – 100,000 €, 100,000–200,000 €,> 200,000 €), also
based on logistic distribution by the same reasons of
the first group of models (Cameron & Trivedi, 2005).
The ordinal logistic regression model assumes that
the relationship between the explanatory variable and
the ordered categorical variable is categorically inde-
pendent, and the following econometric models are
estimated:
For the estimation of the various parameters of the
models, we used the maximum likelihood method
and with robust standard errors, to eliminate the
possible problems of heteroscedasticity. In all the
regressions, the existence of variables with potential
multicollinearity effects through variance inflation
factors (VIF) was analyzed, and these should ideally
be less than 5 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, &
Tatham, 2010).
6.1. Econometric modeling
Table 3 presents the results alluding to Pearson’s corre-
lations among all the variables used in the study. In
general, there were low correlations with the other vari-
ables, except for the number of Innovations (INNOV)
and Patents (PAT) where the correlation was moderate
(r = 0.526 and r = 0.394), respectively. The number of
innovations (INNOV) showed a moderate correlation
with the number of Innovations (PAT) (r = 0.438), and
the other correlations were of low intensity. The perfor-
mance of companies (PERF) was moderately correlated
with urban location (URB) (r = 0.224) and with the
number of workers (LAB) (r = 0.377).
In relation to the factors that predict cooperation
with universities, modeled through binary logistic
regression (Table 4), the model I shows that entre-
preneur’s age (AGE) (OR = 0.97, t-ratio = −2.15), that
is the older the entrepreneurs are, the lesser is the
propensity for the existence of the transfer of knowl-
edge from universities to companies.
The third model reveals that location of the company
in the Lisbon Region (LIS) (OR = 1.44, t-ratio = 2.00)
influences the transfer of knowledge, in which the com-
panies located in the Lisbon Region are more likely to
cooperate with universities.
Table 5 presents the modelation of innovations and
patentes. Model I shows that firms with higher educa-
tion (UNI) have significantly more innovations
(β = 0.36, t-ratio = 2.08). Based on Model II, companies
located in urban areas (URB) have significantly more
innovations (β = 0.83, t-ratio = 4.12) and, in contrast, the
older the company (ANT), the lower was statistically the
number of innovations (β = −0.02, t-ratio = −2.76).
Model III reveals that transfer of knowledge from uni-
versities to the company (KT) significantly increases the
number of innovations (β = 1.09, t-ratio = 15.58). Model
IV shows that companies located in urban areas (URB)
have significantly more innovations (β = 0.80,
t-ratio = 5.07), the older the companies (ANT), statisti-
cally the lower the number of innovations β = −0.06,
t-ratio = −5.13), and the transfer of knowledge from

Table 3. Correlations between the variables used in econometric models.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
(1) AGE 1.000
(2) UNI −0.071 1.000
(3) MALE 0.076 0.112 1.000
(4) URB 0.145 0.280 0.082 1.000
(5) TECHN −0.088 0.073 0.080 0.021 1.000
(6) LAB 0.128 0.004 −0.027 0.062 −0.021 1.000
(7) LIS 0.038 0.066 0.011 0.129 0.046 −0.006 1.000
(8) KT 0.084 0.042 0.055 0.070 0.045 0.016 0.104 1.000
(9) INNOV 0.057 0.096 0.003 0.221 0.034 0.019 0.095 0.526 1.000
(10) PAT 0.100 −0.064 0.014 0.003 −0.039 0.046 0.225 0.394 0.438 1.000
(11) PERF 0.119 0.116 0.056 0.224 0.073 0.377 0.057 0.071 0.112 0.075 1.000
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 7

Table 4. Regression logistics, dependent variable: company cooperation with universities.

Model I Model II Model III
OR t-ratio VIF OR t-ratio VIF OR t-ratio VIF
AGE 0.97* (−2.15) 1.01 0.96 (−1.47) 2.56
UNI 0.70 (−0.94) 1.02 0.85 (−0.34) 1.45
MALE 0.73 (−1.00) 1.02 0.75 (−0.90) 1.03
URB 0.66 (−1.13) 1.06 0.71 (0.93) 1.15
TECHN 0.78 (−0.98) 1.01 0.79 (−0.88) 1.02
ANT 0.99 (−0.99) 1.06 1.02 (0.64) 2.60
LAB 1.00 (0.23) 1.02 1.00 (−0.20) 1.02
HIGH 0.96 (−0.09) 1.02 0.97 (−0.05) 1.32
LIS 1.44* 2.00* 1.02 0.47ǂ (−1.82) 1.02
LL −90.37 −192.13 −210.37
AIC 188.75 398.27 440.75
BIC 205.59 427.69 482.73
n 498 494 492
LL – Log Likelihood; AIC – Akaike Information Criterian; BIC – Bayesian Information Criterian
ǂp < 0.10; *p < 0.05

universities to the company (KT) significantly increases
the number of innovations (β = 1.09, t-ratio = 14.70).
Regarding the number of patents, based on Model
V, it is found that the number of patent applications
was significantly influenced by its number of workers
(β = 0.02, t-ratio = 2.00) and the location in Lisbon
(LIS) (β = 1.99, t-ratio = 5.35), noting the larger the
number of workers, the greater the number of patent
applications and the companies located in Lisbon
have a higher number of patent applications. In
Model VII it is observed that the transfer of knowl-
edge from universities to the company (KT) signifi-
cantly increases the number of patent applications
(β = 2.75, t-ratio = 6.83). Finally, model 8 reveals
that the antiquity of the company (ANT)
(β = −0.11, t-ratio = −2.21), the number of workers
(LAB) (β = 0.02, t-ratio = 2.04), the location in
Lisbon (LIS) (β = 1.53, t-ratio = 4.68) and the exis-
tence of transfer of knowledge from universities to
the company (KT) (β = 2.58, t-ratio = 8.41) predict
significantly the number of patents, that is, the older
the companies, the smaller the number of patent
applications, the larger the number of workers, the
greater the number of patent applications, the com-
panies located in Lisbon have a higher number of
patent applications and the transfer of knowledge
from universities to the company increases the num-
ber of patent applications.
Table 6 shows the results related to the predictors of
Turnover (PERF). In relation to the Model 1, age (AGE)
(OR = 1.03, t-ratio = 3.03) and the fact of having higher
education (UNI) (OR = 2.25, t-ratio = 3.36) statistically
influence the performance, observing that the older the
entrepreneur is, the greater the company’s propensity to
have higher turnover figures, as well as if the entrepre-
neur has higher education. The number of innovations
(INNOV) (OR = 1.25, t-ratio = 2.00) increases the
probability that the company will have higher levels of
turnover (Model IV). Based on Model V, it is found that
the companies located in urban areas (URB) have sig-
nificantly higher levels of turnover (OR = 2.81,
t-ratio = 4.11), the higher the number of workers
(LAB) (OR = 1.35, t-ratio = 4.78), the proportion of
workers with higher education (HIGH) (OR = 2.72,
t-ratio = 2.47), and the number of innovations
(INNOV) (OR = 1.22, t-ratio = 2.21), statistically the
highest is the turnover.
In Table 7 we present the marginal effects of all
Ordered Logistic Regression estimated.
7. Discussion and conclusions
A good theory needs to be simple, sober, and realistic
(Pearl, 2000; Popper, 1959). It is precisely these three
principles that we seek to find in the two research
questions. In this sense, at this stage of our research,
we will answer the two research questions we pro-
posed at the beginning of the research.
7.1. What are the characteristics of
entrepreneurs and companies that promote
knowledge transfer and innovation activities?
After our statistical analyzes, we verified that, as to
the characteristics that foster cooperation between
universities and companies, we found that the
older the entrepreneur is, the lesser the propensity
for the transfer of knowledge from universities to
companies. Just as companies located in the
Lisbon Region are more likely to cooperate with
universities. Some studies indicate that the knowl-
edge transferred through cooperation networks is
not related to the knowledge acquired by these
networks. However, this does not mean that the
formal or informal location of these relationships
has not been studied in the literature. There is
some consensus that the transfer of knowledge
by universities has a more evident impact on
a local industry, since it often depends on com-
munication and cooperation networks in the
urban environment (Azagra-Caro et al., 2017).
 8

Table 5. Poisson regression, dependent variable: number of innovations (I to IV), and number of patent applications (V to VIII).
Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V Model VI Model VII Model VIII
β t-ratio VIF β t-ratio VIF β t-ratio VIF β t-ratio VIF β t-ratio VIF β t-ratio VIF β t-ratio VIF β t-ratio VIF
AGE 0.01 (1.39) 1.01 0.03 (1.01) 2.57 0.05 (1.60) 1.01 0.07 (1.59) 2.57
UNI 0.36* (2.08) 1.02 0.02 (0.10) 1.45 −0.49 (−1.00) 1.02 −0.81ǂ (−1.74) 1.45
MALE −0.01 (−0.09) 1.02 −0.11 (−1.15) 1.03 0.19 (0.41) 1.02 0.04 (0.11) 1.03
URB 0.83* (4.12) 1.06 0.80* (5.07) 1.15 −0.27 (−0.42) 1.06 0.44 (0.79) 1.15
S. J. TEIXEIRA ET AL.

TECHN 0.04 (0.41) 1.01 −0.01 (−0.09) 1.02 −0.47 (−1.04) 1.01 −0.60 (−1.52) 1.02
ANT −0.02* (−2.76) 1.06 −0.06* (−5.13) 2.60 −0.01 (−0.41) 1.06 −0.11* (−2.21) 2.60
LAB 0.00 (0.72) 1.02 0.00 (0.82) 1.02 0.02* (2.00) 1.02 0.02* (2.04) 1.02
HIGH −0.10 (−0.53) 1.02 −0.10 (0.55) 1.32 −1.12ǂ (−1.73) 1.02 −1.00 (−1.01) 1.32
LIS 0.23 (1.58) 1.02 0.02 (0.16) 1.03 1.99* (5.35) 1.02 1.53* (4.68) 1.03
KT 1.09* (15.58) NA 1.09* (−14.70) 1.03 2.75* (6.83) NA 2.85* (8.41) 1.03
LL −568.83 −546.83 −527.39 −494.56 −175.78 −158.77 −138.52 −109.50
AIC 1145.66 1107.65 1058.79 1011.11 359.56 331.54 281.05 241.00
BIC 1162.51 1137.07 1067.22 1057.30 376.40 360.96 289.48 287.18
Pearson statistics/df 0.97 1.03 0.94 0.96 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.05
n 498 494 500 492 498 494 500 492
LL – Log Likelihood; AIC – Akaike Information Criterian; BIC – Bayesian Information Criterian, df – Degrees of freedom; NA – Not Applicable
ǂ p < 0.10; * p < 0.05

Table 6. Ordered logistic regression, dependent variable: turnover (OR and t-stat).
Model I Model II Model III Model IV Model V
OR t-ratio VIF OR t-ratio VIF OR t-ratio VIF OR t-ratio VIF OR t-ratio VIF
AGE 1.03* (3.03) 1.01 1.00 (0.20) 2.66
UNI 2.25* (3.36) 1.02 1.28 (0.87) 1.46
MALE 0.96 (−0.23) 1.02 1.05 (0.26) 1.04
URB 3.15* (4.86) 1.06 2.81* (4.11) 1.22
TECHN 1.12 (0.61) 1.01 1.11 (0.56) 1.03
ANT 1.01 (0.73) 1.06 1.02 (0.90) 2.75
LAB 1.36* (4.90) 1.02 1.35* (4.78) 1.03
HIGH 3.12* (3.29) 1.02 2.72* (2.47) 1.32
LIS 1.28 (0.84) 1.02 1.19 (0.54) 1.08
KT 1.34 (1.37) NA 0.88 (−0.49) 1.48
INNOV 1.25* (2.00) 1.25 1.22* (2.21) 1.69
PAT 1.11 (0.45) 1.25 1.11 (0.45) 1.41
LL −406.24 −685.61 −29.72 −67.67 −734.37
AIC 830.47 1395.22 73.43 151.35 1504.74
BIC 868.37 1445.65 102.93 185.06 1580.31
n 498 494 500 500 492
LL – Log Likelihood; AIC – Akaike Information Criterian; BIC – Bayesian Information Criterian; NA – Not Applicable
ǂp < 0.10; *p < 0.05
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 9

Table 7. Marginal effects for ordered logistic models.

Model I Model III Model III Model IV Model V Model I Model III Model III Model IV Model V
Menos de 50 000€ De 300 000€ a 400 000€
AGE −0.01* 0.00 AGE 0.01* 0.00
UNI −0.18* −0.05 UNI 0.02* 0.01
MALE 0.01 −0.01 MALE 0.00 0.00
URB −0.21* −0.19* URB 0.04* 0.04*
TECHN −0.02 −0.02 TECHN 0.00 0.00
ANT 0.00 0.00 ANT 0.00 0.00
LAB −0.06* −0.06* LAB 0.01* 0.01*
HIGH −0.21* −0.18* HIGH 0.04* 0.03*
LIS −0.04 −0.03 LIS 0.01 0.01
KT −0.06 0.02 KT 0.01 0.00
INNOV −0.05* −0.03 INNOV 0.02* 0.01
PAT −0.02 −0.02 PAT 0.01 0.00
De 50 000€ a 100 000€ De 400 000€ a 500 000€
AGE 0.00 0.00 AGE 0.01* 0.00
UNI −0.02* −0.02 UNI 0.02* 0.01
MALE 0.00 0.00 MALE 0.00 0.00
URB −0.07* −0.07* URB 0.02* 0.02*
TECHN −0.01 −0.01 TECHN 0.00 0.00
ANT 0.00 0.00 ANT 0.00 0.00
LAB −0.02* −0.02* LAB 0.01* 0.01*
HIGH −0.07* −0.07* HIGH 0.02* 0.02*
LIS −0.02 −0.01 LIS 0.01 0.00
KT −0.01 0.01 KT 0.01 0.00
INNOV −0.01 −0.01 INNOV 0.00
PAT 0.00 −0.01 PAT 0.00
De 100 000 a 200 000€ Mais de 500 000€
AGE 0.01* 0.00 AGE 0.01* 0.00
UNI 0.05* 0.02 UNI 0.06* 0.01
MALE 0.00 0.00 MALE 0.00 0.00
URB 0.08* 0.07* URB 0.06* 0.06*
TECHN 0.01 0.01 TECHN 0.01 0.01
ANT 0.00 0.00 ANT 0.00 0.00
LAB 0.02* 0.02* LAB 0.02* 0.02*
HIGH 0.08* 0.07* HIGH 0.06* 0.05*
LIS 0.02 0.01 LIS 0.01 0.01
KT 0.02 −0.01 KT 0.03 −0.01
INNOV 0.01* 0.01 INNOV 0.01
PAT 0.01 0.01 PAT 0.01
De 200 000€ a 300 000€
AGE 0.01* 0.00
UNI 0.04* 0.02
MALE 0.00 0.00
URB 0.08* 0.07*
TECHN 0.01 0.01
ANT 0.00 0.00
LAB 0.02* 0.02*
HIGH 0.08* 0.07*
LIS 0.02 0.01
KT 0.01 −0.01
INNOV 0.01* 0.01
PAT 0.01 0.01
De 300 000€ a 400 000€
AGE 0.01* 0.00
UNI 0.02* 0.01
MALE 0.00 0.00
URB 0.04* 0.04*
TECHN 0.00 0.00
ANT 0.00 0.00
LAB 0.01* 0.01*
HIGH 0.04* 0.03*
LIS 0.01 0.01
KT 0.01 0.00
INNOV 0.02* 0.01
PAT 0.01 0.00

7.2. What is the impact of knowledge transfer on
innovation and business performance activities?
Through multivariate statistical analyzes, we can verify
the company’s antiquity reflected in a smaller number
of innovations. The fact that the entrepreneur has
a higher academic education implies a greater number
of innovations as well as the fact that the companies
are located in an urban environment. Regarding the
impact of knowledge transfer, we find that it signifi-
cantly increases the number of innovations. Finally,
10 S. J. TEIXEIRA ET AL.
and as it is widely defended in the literature, innova-
tive capacity leads to higher volumes of business. As
several authors have argued, we also conclude that
cooperation between companies and universities
plays a particularly important role in the performance
of companies both financially and at the level of orga-
nizations. (Abbas et al., in press; Arvanitis et al., 2008).
Thus, university-company collaboration is an impor-
tant method because it allows the exploration and
verification of the innovative transfer of knowledge
(Aristei et al., 2016; Un et al., 2010). In this sense,
cooperation agreements have become important as
regards the costs of innovation, since they are a great
barrier to innovation, but they are not risks of innova-
tion. Appropriability strategies do not seem to be
relevant to research and development cooperation
with universities (Arvanitis et al., 2011).
Taking into account that companies are embedded
in a medium of great uncertainty and complexity, the
ability to adapt to these contingencies is fundamental.
The greater their adaptability, the greater their com-
petitive advantage over their competitors. One way
they can achieve it is precisely through cooperation
with universities. Companies have to understand that
in order to be at the forefront of knowledge, they
have to look for where it is actually generated, that is,
in the academies. Another way of distinguishing one-
self is through innovation. If they increase their inno-
vative capacity, they will contribute to a better
financial performance and consequently to their com-
petitiveness. This issue is related to the fact that
companies cooperate with Higher Education
Institutions. Thus, if entrepreneurs awaken to the
importance of cooperation with Higher Education
Institutions, these can help companies to achieve
their differentiation, namely through access to the
knowledge generated in them and thus enhance the
construction of innovations.
Another implication, as we mentioned in this section,
is at the level of public policies. Governments must
understand the complex environment in which compa-
nies are embedded today. Only in this way can they adopt
policies that are correct and adjusted to the business
reality of the 21st century. Policies that promote entre-
preneurship in rural areas should be considered so that
these companies, located in less favored regions, achieve
similar performances to their urban counterparts. Only
in this way it will be possible to homogenize the regional
development of a country. Through policies to foster
entrepreneurship, regional development can be strength-
ened and thus contribute to an improvement in the living
conditions of the populations where the companies are
located. It is therefore fundamental to create programs
that promote cooperation with Higher Education
Institutions, while at the same time it is fundamental to
reward companies for their innovative capacity.
At a time when it is imperative to take new mea-
sures and new policies, we believe that support for the
creation of these companies can contribute to regio-
nal development. Above all, we want to contribute
validated tools that allow the analysis of all compa-
nies in general.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Abbas, A., Avdic, A., Xiaobao, P., Hasan, M. M., &
Ming, W. (in press). University-government collabora-
tion for the generation and commercialization of new
knowledge for use in industry. Journal of Innovation &
Knowledge.
Adler, P. S., & Shenha, A. (1990). Adapting your techno-
logical base: The organizational challenge. Sloan
Management Review, 1(32), 25–37.
Amui, L. B. L., Jabbour, C. J. C., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L.,
& Kannan, D. (2017). Sustainability as a dynamic orga-
nizational capability: A systematic review and a future
agenda toward a sustainable transition. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 142, 308–322.
Anning-Dorson, T., Hinson, R. E., Amidu, M., &
Nyamekye, M. B. (2018). Enhancing service firm perfor-
mance through customer involvement capability and
innovativeness. Management Research Review, 41, 1271–
1289.
Aristei, D., Vecchi, M., & Venturini, F. (2016). University
and inter-firm R&D collaborations: Propensity and
intensity of cooperation in Europe. The Journal of
Technology Transfer, 41(4), 841–871.
Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2011). Knowledge
and technology transfer activities between firms and
universities in Switzerland: An analysis based on firm
data. Industry and Innovation, 18(4), 369–392.
Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., & Woerter, M. (2008). Do specific
forms of university-industry knowledge transfer have
different impacts on the performance of private enter-
prises? An empirical analysis based on Swiss firm data.
The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 504–533.
Atherton, A. (2013). Organisational “know-where” and
“know-when”: Re-framing configurations and distribu-
tions of knowledge in organisations. Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, 11(4), 410–421.
Audretsch, D. B., Hülsbeck, M., & Lehmann, E. E. (2012).
Regional competitiveness, university spillovers, and
entrepreneurial activity. Small Business Economics, 39
(3), 587–601.
Aydin, S., & Dube, M. (2018). Knowledge management,
innovation, and competitive advantage: Is the relation-
ship in the eye of the beholder? Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 00(00), 1–12.
Azagra-Caro, J. M., Barberá-Tomás, D., Edwards-
Schachter, M., & Tur, E. M. (2017). Dynamic interac-
tions between university-industry knowledge transfer
channels: A case study of the most highly cited academic
patent. Research Policy, 46(2), 463–474.
Bekkers, R., Maria, I., & Freitas, B. (2008). Analysing
knowledge transfer channels between universities and

industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?
Research Policy, 37, 1837–1853.
Bhabra, H. S., & Hossain, A. T. (2018). Does location
influence executive compensation? Evidence from
Canadian SMEs. Journal of Management and
Governance, 22(1), 89–109.
Bhupendra, K. V., & Sangle, S. (2015). What drives
successful implementation of pollution prevention
and cleaner technology strategy? The role of innova-
tive capability. Journal of Environmental Management,
155, 184–192.
Boumarafi, B., & Jabnoun, N. (2008). Knowledge management
and performance in UAE business organizations. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 6(3), 233–238.
Buffa, F. (2015). Young tourists and sustainability. Profiles,
Attitudes, and Implications for Destination Strategies.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 7(10), 14042–14062.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics –
Methods and aplications. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Cañete, A. (2018). Emprendedores y proyectos fallidos de
LEADER y PRODER en Andalucía en el periodo
2000-2006. Perfil y motivos de desistimiento
Entrepreneurs and failed projects from LEADER
Profile and reasons for withdrawal, LXXIX, 141–166.
Castellano, S., Davidson, P., & Khelladi, I. (2017).
Creativity techniques to enhance knowledge transfer
within global virtual teams in the context of
knowledge-intensive enterprises. The Journal of
Technology Transfer, 42(2), 253–266.
Del Giudice, M., Carayannis, E. G., & Maggioni, V. (2017).
Global knowledge intensive enterprises and international
technology transfer: Emerging perspectives from
a quadruple helix environment. The Journal of
Technology Transfer, 42(2), 229–235.
Feng, W., Duan, Y., Fu, Z., & Mathews, B. (2009).
Understanding expert systems applications from
a knowledge transfer perspective. Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, 7(2), 131–141.
Fernandes, C. I., & Ferreira, J. J. M. (2013). Knowledge
spillovers: Cooperation between universities and KIBS.
R and D Management, 43(5), 461–472.
Firlej, K. (2012). Knowledge management and diffusion of
innovations in the process of restructuring agriculture
and food industry companies. In Knowledge manage-
ment and diffusion of innovations in the process of
restructuring agriculture and food industry companies
(pp. 83–93). Ostrołęka: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły
Ekonomiczno- Społecznej w Ostrołęce.
Firlej, K., & Żmija, D. (2017). The specificity of knowledge
management in the food industry in Poland. E+M
Ekonomie a Management, 20(1), 83–97.
Franco, M., & Pinho, C. (in press). A case study about
cooperation between University Research Centres:
Knowledge transfer perspective. Suma de Negocios.
Fukugawa, N. (2016). Knowledge creation and dissemination
by Kosetsushi in sectoral innovation systems: Insights from
patent data. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2303–2327.
García-Almeida, D. J., & Klassen, N. (2017). The influence
of knowledge-based factors on taxi competitiveness at
island destinations: An analysis on tips. Tourism
Management, 59, 110–122.
Givord, P., Quantin, S., & Trevien, C. (2018). A long-term
evaluation of the first generation of French urban enter-
prise zones. Journal of Urban Economics, 105
(March 2015), 149–161.
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 11
Gomezelj Omerzel, D., & Smolčić Jurdana, D. (2016). The
influence of intellectual capital on innovativeness and
growth in tourism SMEs: Empirical evidence from
Slovenia and Croatia. Economic Research-Ekonomska
Istraživanja, 29(1), 1075–1090.
Grillo, C., Ferreira, F. A. F., Marques, C. S. E., & Ferreira, J.
(2018). A knowledge-based innovation assessment sys-
tem for small- and medium-sized enterprises: Adding
value with cognitive mapping and MCDA. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 22(3), 696–718. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-2017-0332
Guzzini, E., & Iacobucci, D. (2017). Project failures and
innovation performance in university–Firm collabora-
tions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4),
865–883.
Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., &
Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th
ed.). London, United Kingdom: Pearson Prentice Hall.
He, J., & Huang, X. (2018). Agglomeration, differentiation
and creative milieux: A socioeconomic analysis of loca-
tion behaviour of creative enterprises in Shanghai.
Urban Policy and Research, 36(1), 79–96.
Hughes, P. R. E. M. K. (2008). Market knowledge diffusion
and business performance. Journal of Public Budgeting
Accounting & Financial Management, 42(11/12),
1372–1395.
Iorio, R., Labory, S., & Rentocchini, F. (2017). The impor-
tance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth
of knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian
academic scientists. Research Policy, 46(2), 497–509.
Jefferson, D. J., Maida, M., Farkas, A., Alandete-Saez, M., &
Bennett, A. B. (2017). Technology transfer in the
Americas: Common and divergent practices among
major research universities and public-sector
institutions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6),
1307–1333.
Jones, J., Corral, G., & Zubielqui, D. (2017). Technological
forecasting & social change doing well by doing good:
A study of university-industry interactions, innovation-
ess and fi rm performance in sustainability-oriented
Australian SMEs. Technological Forecasting & Social
Change, 123, 262–270.
Kaiser, S., Kansy, S., Mueller-Seitz, G., &
Ringlstetter, M. (2009). Weblogs for organizational
knowledge sharing and creation: A comparative case
study. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7
(2), 120–130.
Klada, T.-V. (2018). Unraveling entrepreneurial team for-
mation: A qualitative study among funded ventures.
SAGE Open, 8(2), 215824401877670.
Koľveková, G., & Palaščáková, D. (2017). Analysis of
Bratislava and Žilina as urban areas in Western
Slovakia in the context of associations among employ-
ment and industries. Oeconomia Copernicana, 8(4),
537–552.
Krstić, G., Mirić, A. A., & Rakić, J. Ž. (2017). Profile of social
entrepreneur in Serbia: Motivation and socio-demographic
characteristics. Sociologija, 59(1), 62–80.
Kunst, E. M., van Woerkom, M., van Kollenburg, G. H.,
& Poell, R. F. (2018). Stability and change in teachers’
goal orientation profiles over time: Managerial coach-
ing behavior as a predictor of profile change. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 104(February 2017), 115–127.
Lähtinen, K. (2007). Linking resource-based view with business
economics of woodworking industry: Earlier findings and
future insights. Silva Fennica, 41(1), 149–165.
12 S. J. TEIXEIRA ET AL.
Langer, R. S., & Macuare, K. A. (2016). The NAI fellow
profile: An interview with Dr. Robert S. Langer.
Technology and Innovation, 18(813), 219–225.
Liao, S., Hu, D., Chen, C.-C., & Lin, Y.-L. (2015).
Comparison of competing models and multi-group ana-
lysis of organizational culture, knowledge transfer, and
innovation capability: An empirical study of the Taiwan
semiconductor industry. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 13(3), 248–260.
Liu, C. H. S. (2018). Examining social capital, organiza-
tional learning and knowledge transfer in cultural and
creative industries of practice. Tourism Management,
64, 258–270.
Mayer, T., Mayneris, F., & Py, L. (2017). The impact of
urban enterprise zones on establishment location deci-
sions and labor market outcomes: Evidence from France.
Journal of Economic Geography, 17(4), 709–752.
Miwa, T., & Bell, M. G. H. (2017). Efficiency of routing
and scheduling system for small and medium size
enterprises utilizing vehicle location data. Journal of
Intelligent Transportation Systems: Technology,
Planning, and Operations, 21(3), 239–250.
Munjal, S., Requejo, I., & Kundu, S. K. (in press). Offshore
outsourcing and firm performance: Moderating effects of
size, growth and slack resources. Journal of Business
Research.
Nair, S., Nisar, A., Palacios, M., & Ruiz, F. (2012). Impact
of knowledge brokering on performance heterogeneity
among business models. Management Decision, 50(9),
1649–1660.
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating
theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing
process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1),
2–10.
Palvalin, M., Vuori, V., & Helander, N. (2018). The relation
between knowledge transfer and productivity in knowl-
edge work. Knowledge Management Research and
Practice, 16(1), 118–125.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pooper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery.
New York: Basic Books.
Puig, P., & Valero, J. (2006). Count data distributions:
Some characterizations with applications. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 101(473), 332–340.
Radu-Daniel, P., Daniel, P., Cristian, D., Irina, S., &
Daniela-Rodica, S. (2015). Structural changes in the
entrepreneurial profile of the creative industries in
Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23
(October 2014), 1147–1151.
Raguragavan Ganeshasundaram, N. H. (2007). “Decision
research” correlates directly with better business perfor-
mance. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25(1), 45–65.
Rodríguez-Gómez, D., & Gairín, J. (2015). Unravelling
knowledge creation and management in educational orga-
nisations: Barriers and enablers. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 13(2), 149–159.
Rossi, F., Rosli, A., & Yip, N. (2017). Academic engagement
as knowledge co-production and implications for impact:
Evidence from knowledge transfer partnerships. Journal
of Business Research, 80(November 2016), 1–9.
Santoro, M. D., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). The institutiona-
lization of knowledge transfer activities within industry –
University collaborative ventures. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 17, 299–319.
Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., Bresciani, S., & Meissner, D.
(2017). Knowledge driven preferences in informal
inbound open innovation modes, an explorative view
on small to medium enterprises. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 21(3), 640–655.
Secundo, G., De Beer, C., Schutte, C. S. L., & Passiante, G.
(2017). Mobilising intellectual capital to improve
European universities’ competitiveness: The technology
transfer offices’ role. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18
(3), 607–624.
Stejskal, J., Meričková, B. M., & Prokop, V. (2016). The coop-
eration between enterprises: Significant part of the innova-
tion process – A case study of the Czech machinery industry.
E a M: Ekonomie a Management, 19(3), 110–122.
Thomas, A., Dorrington, P., Costa, F., Loudon, G.,
Francis, M., & Fisher, R. (2017). Organisational learning
capability in SMEs: An empirical development of inno-
vation in the supply chain. Cogent Business &
Management, 4(1), 1–20.
Timmermans, J., Van Der Heiden, S., & Born, M. P. (2014).
Policy entrepreneurs in sustainability transitions: Their per-
sonality and leadership profiles assessed. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 13, 96–108.
Tizkar Sadabadi, A., & Abdul Manaf, A. (2018). IKML
approach to integrating knowledge management and
learning for software project management. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 00(00), 1–13.
Un, C. A., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Asakawa, K. (2010). R&D
collaborations and product innovation. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 27, 673–689.
Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., Van
Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011).
Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities:
An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs.
Research Policy, 40(4), 553–564.
Venkitachalam, K., & Ambrosini, V. (2017). A triadic link
between knowledge management, information technol-
ogy and business strategies. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 15(2), 192–200.
Villani, E., Rasmussen, E., & Grimaldi, R. (2017). How
intermediary organizations facilitate university–Industry
technology transfer: A proximity approach.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 86–102.
Wei, Y., & Miraglia, S. (2017). Organizational culture and
knowledge transfer in project-based organizations:
Theoretical insights from a Chinese construction firm.
International Journal of Project Management, 35(4),
571–585.
Yang, C., Zhang, Q., & Ding, S. (2015). An evaluation
method for innovation capability based on uncertain
linguistic variables. Applied Mathematics and
Computation, 256(1), 160–174.
Yang, Z., & Cai, J. (2016). Do regional factors matter?
Determinants of hotel industry performance in China.
Tourism Management, 52(January 2014), 242–253.
Zhang, M., & Hartley, J. L. (2018). Guanxi, IT systems, and
innovation capability: The moderating role of proactiveness.
Journal of Business Research, 90(May), 75–86.
Zhao, W., & Zeng, Y. (2011). Construction and design of
evaluation index system of innovative enterprises on
innovative capacities. International Journal of Science
and Technology Management Research, 21(1), 14–17.
Zheng, C., & Hu, M. C. (2018). An exploration of the applica-
tion of universities as artificial institutional entrepreneurs:
The case of China. Journal of Public Affairs, 18(1), 1–10.