This document analyzes the knowledge transfer process between small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and public knowledge institutes in the Netherlands. It conducted interviews with stakeholders and a survey of 185 SMEs. The results found that SMEs have difficulties finding the right partner institute and knowledge is not always clear. The initial cooperation phase is most critical and experience improves outcomes. The role of intermediaries is sometimes unclear. Recommendations include clarifying the intermediary's role, improving capacity at institutes, and making more knowledge accessible online.

1. 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
once 2-5 times 6-10 times > 10 times
Evaluation of
result
Evaluation of
knowledge
institute
Evaluation of
intermediary
36%
18%
15%
11%
10%
Expert
Good price/quality ratio
Best results
Reliable partner
Good communication skills
Research Question
Why is the current knowledge transfer
process between SMEs and public
knowledge institutes not going well and how
can this process be improved?
Research Method
1) Interviews with people from:
- United Brains
- Syntens
- Knowledge Institutes (TU/e, Fontys,
ROC, TNO, AVANS, HAS kennistransfer)
- SMEs
2) A questionnaire is sent to 1094 SMEs
and 185 of them responded correctively
(response rate = 16,9%).
Results
• SMEs have difficulties in finding
the right person/ knowledge institute;
• The clarity of available knowledge within
the knowledge institutes is insufficient;
• The first phase of a cooperation project
Is the most critical;
• Experience with this kind of cooperation
increases the overall performance;
• The role of the intermediary is not clear
to everyone;
• SMEs searching for complementary
(compared with supplementary)
knowledge need more attention from
the intermediary.
SMEs
(Public)
Knowledge
Institutes
Knowledge
Transfer
Process
Innovativeness
SMEs
Valorization of
Scientific
Knowledge
SCOPE: DUTCH MARKET
Knowledge
Broker
Recommendations
1) Implement improvement model for United
Brains in which the role of the intermediary is
clarified, the differences between researcher and
entrepreneur are discussed, and a difference
between ‘normal’ and ‘difficult’ projects is made.
2) Find the right person and knowledge institute
faster by improving the rewarding system within
the knowledge institutes which will yield more
available capacity.
3) Clarify the available knowledge within the
knowledge institutes by gaining insight in
publications, apprenticeship reports, bachelor/
master theses, and research reports. The next step
is working towards a web 2.0 philosophy where all
knowledge can be shared, added, and changed to
enhance innovative activities.
Figure 2: Relationship between number of projects with
a knowledge institute and level of satisfaction
Figure 1: Conceptual model including the most
important actors and their aims
Figure 3: Most important reasons to cooperate with a
knowledge institutes
Master Thesis Title: The Knowledge Transfer Process between SMEs and Public Knowledge Institutes
Author: J.J.P.M. van Gaal
Supervisors TU/e: Dr. M.M.A.H. Cloodt & Dr.Ir. J.J. Berends
Company supervisors: Ir. T. Schurgers (United Brains) & Mr.Ir. M. Peutz (Syntens)