Research is considered the essence of economic growth. It therefore becomes necessary to understand and cultivate management of the knowledge created, as well as the resources needed for research (Numprasertchai & Igel, 2005).

In this context, universities’ main objective is to create and transmit knowledge (Berbegal-Mirabent, Sánchez García, & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015). To attain their goals, strategies have been implemented to strengthen their capacity for scientific production, despite knowledge mostly being generated in isolation (D’Este & Patel, 2007; Durda & Krajcik, 2016). Therefore, in order to organize and transmit knowledge effectively, universities have created internal structures devoted to research, namely institutes and centres of research that allow the creation of communication channels to transfer the results of research (Rubiano, Rangel, Pacheco, & Hernández, 2015).

University Research Centres were created in response to the need for change in university structures, as well as the desire to join researchers from various origins aiming to solve complex problems of various types (Berbegal-Mirabent et al., 2015; Bozeman & Boardman, 2003).

The literature does not present a clear definition of University Research Centres, or what forms them, possibly due to the heterogeneity of centres and the great diversity of objectives (Geiger, 1990; Sabharwal & Hu, 2013). However, according to Bozeman and Boardman (2003), a research centre is defined as “a formal organizational entity within a university, which exists principally to serve a research mission, being defined beyond the departmental organization and includes researchers from more than one department“.

Research centres are the main units for creation of new knowledge (Chataway & Wield, 2000; Sabharwal & Hu, 2013). However, in medium and small-scale research centres, research is carried out by students and researchers under the guidance of a professor, who also teaches (Jain & Triandis, 1990). The situation in large research centres is considerably different. In the latter, there is cooperation between research centres in various universities and countries, thereby allowing a greater exchange of knowledge and resources.

In this scenario, we find the organization of universities and knowledge in global networks (Guan & Liu, 2016; Larner, 2015). Scientific cooperation encourages the creation of knowledge and its dissemination. Therefore, researchers and research centres well positioned within a network receive information of greater quality and more quickly (Lamniotte & Panzarasa, 2009).

Management of scientific knowledge is fundamental for the development of research centres in that it makes them more efficient and effective (Numprasertchai & Igel, 2005). Nevertheless, few studies have focused on knowledge management and its contribution to the effectiveness of research centres (Jain & Triandis, 1990). Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap, presenting and explaining the importance of managing and exchanging knowledge between universities, more specifically between University Research Centres, as well as the role firms can play in this type of cooperative relationship.

The problems arising from cooperation are ubiquitous and wide-ranging (Kube, Schaube, Schildberg-Hörisch, & Khachatryan, 2015). The main aim of this study is therefore to provide a broad view of the benefits and obstacles to cooperation between universities, and more specifically between their research centres. Therefore, the following research question is presented: What factors drive to cooperation between University Research Centres? This study contributes to the innovation and knowledge literature by assessing the relationship between universities, research centres and firms in the technological transfer process, highlighting the role of cooperation networks.

The structure of this paper is as follows. The next section presents in some detail the advantages and disadvantages provided by cooperation between universities. Section 3 justifies the methodology used, with a description of the case study and the data-collecting instrument. The following sections present and discuss the results, together with the conclusions and implications of the study.

The common characteristic of all University Research Centres, broadly speaking, is the intention to promote collaboration between researchers (Berbegal-Mirabent et al., 2015; Boardman & Corleyb, 2008; Guan & Liu, 2016). The main aim of research centres involves the creation and transmission of knowledge (Chataway & Wield, 2000; Guan & Liu, 2016; Sabharwal & Hu, 2013). These actors have as the common denominator the fact of stimulating research and scientific publication, as well as the intention to cooperate with other researchers and/or research centres (Bozeman & Boardman, 2003).

So research is considered crucial for innovation, since it creates new and differentiated products, thereby promoting technological advantages (Jeong, Choi, & Kim, 2014). In this connection, cooperation, particularly in the context of technology, has increased considerably in recent years, together with international cooperation between researchers and research centres (Czarnitzki, Doherr, Hussinger, Schliessler, & Toole, 2015; Laband & Tollison, 2000).

With the globalization of higher education and IT (Information Technology) support, knowledge transfer becomes more frequent, intensive and rapidly transmittable between universities in different countries. This takes place through various means, namely, books, electronic means, conferences, exchange of researchers and others (Teichler, 2004).

Besides knowledge transfer, scientific productivity, researchers’ career prospects, affiliation with important research centres and the commitment to work with older colleagues are factors associated with the productivity of both individuals and research centres (Pezzoni, Sterzi, & Lissoni, 2012). Research productivity incorporates individual effort to create knowledge and network relationships (Czarnitzki et al., 2015; Su, 2014).

Successful cooperation, therefore, depends also on the right choice of parties to integrate the partnership. Jain and Triandis (1990), and Melin (2009) consider necessary the selection of partners with specific competences or resources (e.g. equipment), to lead to successful completion of the research it is proposed to carry out.

Research centres in universities in developing countries, due to their limited internal resources, should implement cooperation strategies with other centres in developed countries. In this way, they increase their potential and reinforce their research capacity (Numprasertchaia & Igel, 2005).

However, the choice of researcher or research centre for a cooperative relationship, despite being rigorous and following criteria, generally involves some degree of risk (Wildavsky, 2010).

Traditionally, universities are known for having their own particular organizational structure, which dates back to the Middle Ages. However, today universities are faced with European and global developments which question their traditional form of action (Czarnitzki et al., 2015; Wit, 2010).

In response to globalization and the process of regional integration, universities have internationalized. The change in universities’ strategy can be observed by the increase in international cooperation between them, namely consortia1 in higher education (Beerkens & Derwende, 2007), twinning (Knight, 2011; Prem, 2014), alliances, virtual and affiliated campuses (Knight, 2011).

University networks are considered a mechanism for sustained promotion of cross-border collaboration. These networks involve a considerable number of universities and focus on a broader set of activities organized around a given problem or objective (Chapman, Pekol, & Wilson, 2014). Consequently, the internationalization of researchers’ labour market is witnessed. Universities have begun to rethink their strategies in order to gain or hold on to competitive advantages (Larner, 2015). In this connection, Numprasertchai and Igel (2005) consider scientific research a fundamental factor in new knowledge creation and thereby sustaining competitive advantages.

The literature suggests that differences in the institutional environment of each university can frustrate cooperation between these agents. This is due to the culture and history of each institution, its structural organization, and to procedures and routines that can conflict with the institutional culture of other universities involved in the cooperation (Beerkens & Derwende, 2007).

University Research Centres are fundamental for strategic use of science and technology, and a way to solve problems (Czarnitzki et al., 2015; Stokols, Hall, Taylor, & Moser, 2008). Consequently, from the 1980s, policy has changed, in terms of budget and fulfilling financing circles (Ponomariov & Boardman, 2010).

Financial incentives stimulate cooperation, particularly international cooperation. This type of cooperation brings higher costs than “traditional” cooperation, due to the distance factor (Bohen & Stiles, 1998). In this context, and since the budget for research is relatively limited, financial incentives encourage the expansion of knowledge abroad and ensure the continuation of important research activities (Jeong et al., 2014).

Besides the above, financial incentives can have a positive influence on scientific productivity, in terms of both researchers and research centres, through cooperation (Lakitan, Hidayat, & Herlinda, 2012). Nevertheless, that effect may not be immediate, since some research can take several years to reach applicable results (Daraio & Moed, 2011; Defazio, Lockett, & Wright, 2009).

For it to be possible to determine the obstacles and drivers regarding the SiNGULAR project, namely, (1) knowledge transfer, (2) choice of partners, (3) institutional culture and (4) importance of financing, the statements of those in charge of coordinating the project in the different institutions (see Table 1) in relation to the topics mentioned are presented below.

Besides including researchers from different countries and backgrounds, the SiNGULAR project was considerably productive in relation to scientific publications in the context of renewable energy (source: http://www.singular-fp7.eu/home/).

In this scenario, the project coordinator at POLITO (E2) states that, “with our cooperation, we had the possibility of learning new contents belonging to the expertise of different research groups, working together and producing an impressive amount of research articles containing the results of our very fruitful collaboration”.

The knowledge transfer allowed by the cooperative relationship formed leads to greater researcher commitment, in that they are able to achieve the objectives proposed in the cooperation, more efficiently and quickly (Arvanitis, Kubli, & Woerter, 2008). Accordingly the project coordinator at UCLM highlights that, “since this allowed to have exchanges of students among the project members. The benefits were related to new publications, co-direction of theses, etc” (E3).

Cooperation between research centres from different countries allows more efficient and quicker knowledge transfer (Teichler, 2004). Agreeing with this, the project coordinator at AUTH also considers that, “the SiNGULAR project favored the exchange and development of knowledge relevant to my research. Main benefits of cooperation were (a) numerous joint journal and conference papers (b) fruitful exchange of research ideas and (c) cooperation in development of specific applications software” (E4). Similarly, the project coordinator at UPB considers that, “The knowledge shared in our research activities addressed power systems operation optimization and price signals of island electrical power systems” (E5).

The literature on cooperation between universities and industry also mentions the importance of knowledge transfer between these agents, in order to meet market needs through the creation of new technology developed at universities (Franco & Haase, 2015; Franco, Haase, & Fernandes, 2014).

In this context, among the firms involved in the project, the opinion is also unanimous regarding the importance of knowledge transfer. All the firms studied here and involved in the SiNGULAR project consider knowledge transfer fundamental for the cooperation's success. However, the person in charge of project coordination at the firm of EDA goes further, by saying that cooperation is beneficial for both parties:

“The cooperation between these two types of institutions is very important. Both have a lot to gain from this cooperation. Enterprises give indications to universities about their needs, concerns and difficulties about the operation of the systems which leads to the topics and subjects for universities to study and investigate. On the other hand, universities receive from enterprises real data and knowledge about the practical operation of the systems and in the end they can supply ideas and solutions for enterprises to cope with their needs, concerns and difficulties. It is a profitable exchange relationship” (E6).