IJRISS Logo

From Contracts to Co-Creation: Navigating Institutional Voids and Innovation in Georgia's University–Industry Partnerships

Authors

Fred Kasirye

Assistant Professor of Management Caucasus School of Business, Caucasus University (Georgia)

Akaki Kapanadze

Director – Project Management Department Caucasus University (Georgia)

Article Information

DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100400527

Subject Category: Social science

Volume/Issue: 10/4 | Page No: 7421-7437

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2026-04-25

Accepted: 2026-04-30

Published: 2026-05-16

Abstract

This study examines how university–industry (U–I) partnerships in Georgia navigate institutional voids by blending formal contracts with co-creation mechanisms to generate innovation outcomes.
Drawing on institutional theory, transaction cost economics, and open innovation perspectives, we test a conceptual model linking institutional voids, co-creation mechanisms, and innovation performance using original cross-sectional survey data from 44 firms actively engaged in U–I collaborations. Hierarchical regression and moderation analyses were employed to assess hypothesized relationships.
Co-creation mechanisms (joint research, internships, consortia, and mixed teams) show a positive, marginally significant association with knowledge outcomes, but do not directly translate into commercial outcomes. Institutional voids do not significantly deter co-creation; instead, firms rely on relational governance and trust-based coordination to sustain collaboration. Partnership maturity moderates the institutional voids–co-creation nexus, with longer-standing partnerships better able to leverage co-creation under weak formal institutions. A persistent knowledge–commercialization gap remains, underscoring the limits of relational substitutes in the absence of robust technology transfer infrastructures.
The study provides micro-level evidence from a post-Soviet transition economy, demonstrating that hybrid governance—sequencing from relational trust toward formalized structures as partnerships mature—offers the most viable pathway for innovation under institutional voids. It extends governance theory by showing that while co-creation effectively builds absorptive capacity, commercialization requires complementary institutional assets that remain scarce in emerging ecosystems.

Keywords

Georgia's innovation ecosystem stands at this crossroads

Downloads

PDF JATS XML

References

1. Al-Tabbaa, O., & Ankrah, S. (2016). Social capital to facilitate 'engineered' university–industry collaboration for technology transfer: A dynamic perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 1-15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Argyres, N., & Mayer, K. J. (2007). Contract design as a firm capability: An integration of learning and transaction cost perspectives. Academy of management review, 32(4), 1060-1077. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bekkers, R., & Freitas, I. M. B. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37(10), 1837-1853. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2011). The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography. Research Policy, 40(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Branstetter, L. (2005). Exploring the Link Between Academic Science and Industrial Innovation. Annales d'Économie et de Statistique(79/80), 119-142. https://doi.org/10.2307/20777572 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bruneel, J., d'Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research policy, 39(7), 858-868. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California management review, 45(3), 33-58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 183-216. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. CSABA, L. (2023). European integration and models for emerging economies. In: The Oxford handbook of postsocialist countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. D'este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The journal of technology transfer, 36(3), 316-339. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Duchek, S. (2013). Capturing Absorptive Capacity: A Critical Review and Future Prospects. Schmalenbach Business Review, 65(3), 312-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396860 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 23(4), 660-679. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Easterby-Smith, M., Graça, M., Antonacopoulou, E., & Ferdinand, J. (2008). Absorptive capacity: A process perspective. Management learning, 39(5), 483-501. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Estrin, S., & Prevezer, M. (2011). The role of informal institutions in corporate governance: Brazil, Russia, India, and China compared. Asia Pacific journal of management, 28(1), 41-67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Gulati, R., Lavie, D., & Singh, H. (2009). The nature of partnering experience and the gains from alliances. Strategic management journal, 30(11), 1213-1233. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Gulati, R., & Nickerson, J. A. (2008). Interorganizational trust, governance choice, and exchange performance. Organization science, 19(5), 688-708. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hart, O. (1995). Firms, contracts, and financial structure. Clarendon press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hertzfeld, H. R., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships. Research Policy, 35(6), 825-838. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hung, S.-W., & Chang, C.-C. (2012). A co-opetition perspective of technology alliance governance modes. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(7), 679-696. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. (2010). Winning in emerging markets: A road map for strategy and execution. Harvard Business Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic management journal, 27(2), 131-150. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation wesley M. cohen. Administrative science quarterly, 35, 128-152. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lim, K. (2004). The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries (1981–1997). Research Policy, 33(2), 287-321. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.08.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of business venturing, 24(5), 419-435. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Manev, I. M., & Stevenson, W. B. (2001). Balancing ties: boundary spanning and influence in the organization's extended network of communication. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 38(2), 183-205. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), 1-12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401-1423. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Mora-Valentin, E. M., Montoro-Sanchez, A., & Guerras-Martin, L. A. (2004). Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations. Research Policy, 33(1), 17-40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00087-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research policy, 30(1), 99-119. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge university press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. S. (1996). The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of management review, 21(2), 492-528. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., & Jiang, Y. (2008). An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of international business studies, 39(5), 920-936. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D'este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., & Hughes, A. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research policy, 42(2), 423-442. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International journal of management reviews, 9(4), 259-280. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Pisano, G. (2006). Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Research policy, 35(8), 1122-1130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. (2002). Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic management journal, 23(8), 707-725. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative science quarterly, 116-145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393988 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Ramaswamy, V. (2009). Co-creation of value — towards an expanded paradigm of value creation. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 26(6), 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11621-009-0085-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Ratchukool, N., & Igel, B. (2018). The effect of proximity between universities and research institutes and firms on firm innovativeness. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 26(1), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2018.1488145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Reuer, J. J., Zollo, M., & Singh, H. (2002). Post‐formation dynamics in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 23(2), 135-151. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of management review, 19(1), 90-118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Ryall, M. D., & Sampson, R. C. (2009). Formal contracts in the presence of relational enforcement mechanisms: Evidence from technology development projects. Management science, 55(6), 906-925. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Samoff, J. (2012). More of the same will not do: Learning without learning in the World Bank's 2020 education strategy. In The World Bank and Education (pp. 109-121). Brill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Schepker, D. J., Nyberg, A. J., Ulrich, M. D., & Wright, P. M. (2018). Planning for future leadership: Procedural rationality, formalized succession processes, and CEO influence in CEO succession planning. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 523-552. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127-151. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00114-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-133. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Sydow, A., Cannatelli, B. L., Giudici, A., & Molteni, M. (2022). Entrepreneurial workaround practices in severe institutional voids: Evidence from Kenya. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(2), 331-367. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Thune, T. (2009). Doctoral students on the university–industry interface: a review of the literature. Higher Education, 58(5), 637-651. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of product innovation management, 31(4), 814-831. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Williamson, B., & Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and privatisation in/of education in the context of Covid-19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Williamson, O. E. (1985). Reflections on the new institutional economics. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft/Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics(H. 1), 187-195. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Zaheer, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). Relational governance as an interorganizational strategy: An empirical test of the role of trust in economic exchange. Strategic management journal, 16(5), 373-392. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of management review, 27(2), 185-203. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Zollo, M., Reuer, J. J., & Singh, H. (2002). Interorganizational routines and performance in strategic alliances. Organization science, 13(6), 701-713. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles