This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. The publication isavailable to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

Global Knowledge Transfer Framework: A UniversityIndustry Collaboration Perspective
Srigowtham Arunagiri*
Indian Institute of Science, C V Raman Ave, Devasandra Layout, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560012,
INDIA
E-mail: a.srigowtham@gmail.com

Nawarerk Chalarak, Naoshi Uchihira, Yasuo Sasaki
Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Asahidai, 1 Chome−1, Nomi, Ishikawa,
923-1292, JAPANE-mail: nawarerkc@jaist.ac.jp, uchihira@jaist.ac.jp, sasaki@jaist.ac.jp

Mary Mathew
TECHLINK, 2000 Argentia Rd, Plaza 1 Suite 301, Mississauga L5N 1P7, CANADA
E-mail: marymathew24@gmail.com* Corresponding author

Abstract
Today’s business environment is characterized by huge competing technologies, shorter product life withadvent of new technologies in an ever-increasing pace. Current business paradigm has forced industries toseek help of universities, who are considered a powerhouse of innovations and intellectual minds. This
collaboration environment poses more complex problems for effectively transferring knowledge. Althoughbridge system engineers who work as knowledge transfer facilitators between collaborating industries arequite common, such facilitators’ role in a university-industry collaboration setup has been less discussed. Our
study aims at understanding specific roles of such facilitators called the “Bridge Managers (BM)”, infacilitating smooth knowledge transfer and to understand possible places for improvement. In the current
business scenario, where collaborations span across regional boundaries, roles of such BM become
increasingly difficult and complex. Our study tries to understand these problems related to university-industry
collaborations in a multicultural setup.
Keywords: university-industry collaboration, bridge system engineers, R&D bridge managers, knowledgetransfer, global R&D collaborations.

Introduction
Knowledge management in an inter-institutional collaborative setup has always been considereda tricky task, especially when the collaborations span across regional boundaries. Much of these
difficulties may be attributed to difficulties in transfer of information and knowledge across these
institutional barriers. Bridge System Engineers (BSE) were found to be employed by companies
to help them overcome these knowledge transfer (KT) barriers by effectively communicatingThis paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. The publication isavailable to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

between culturally diverse collaborators and drive projects to successful completion. In current
business scenario, in-house R&D is seldom preferred a choice to maintain competitive advantage
and hence universities are increasingly sought out as collaborative partners. Universities, a richpowerhouse of innovative minds and their expertise in basic R&D research, are consideredessential for sustaining business, especially when industry believes using universities’technologies could help them save time to produce a novel product, rather than starting fromscratch involving in basic research activities. However, these kinds of collaborations between
universities and industries have been observed to be a source of problem in terms of successfullytransferring knowledge from one entity to another.
In case of a university-industry (U-I) collaboration, where the collaboration would be aimed at
R&D rather than a conventional business project as in industry-industry (I-I) collaboration,
specialized managers called Bridge Managers (BM) would be required to coordinate suchcollaborative R&D projects. The literature has discussed about roles of BSE and traits in
multicultural industrial collaboration setups. Literatures discussing roles of BM in a U-I setup
were found to be scarce. Universities having priorities and cultures different from industries pose
a formidable barrier for knowledge transfer. Therefore, understanding BM’s specific roles in thissetup becomes crucial for industries to maximize their returns from university collaborations.
Industries can seek out to employ those BM with specific skill sets who could cope withknowledge transfer barriers specific to U-I collaborations, especially when these collaborations
are from different geographical locations differing in culture and language. Understanding
barriers to knowledge transfer and roles of BM in these contexts is the focus of our current study.
Literature Review and Research Questions
Our study focused on literatures discussing perceived barriers for knowledge transfer between
collaborating entities and qualities considered essential for a bridge system engineer to mitigate
these barriers to enable successful transfer of knowledge between the collaborators.
Barriers to knowledge transfer
In U-I setup for R&D, industries perceive that universities’ licensing policies have a huge impact
on knowledge transfer. Universities’ priorities and values like teaching and dissipating freeknowledge for public could conflict with industries’ priorities, which is more towards
commercialization. Industries also believe that university research results are not readily
available for commercialization and continuous support from university becomes crucial for
product development (Flores et al., 2009). Geographical distance and absorptive capacity ofrecipient firm, who receives technology from universities affect transfer of tacit knowledge(Flores et al., 2009). They also add that geographical distance is criteria affecting collaborationand hence for tacit knowledge transfers, extensive communication in form of face-to-facemeeting, conferences, email, phone calls, video calls are necessary (Flores et al., 2009).
Lack of motivations to professors, attitude of more-take-than-give attitude and fear of losing IP
to academic publications are obstacles for knowledge transfer. Innovative culture, innovation
strategy, absorptive capacity of recipient firms, proximities of partner entities, public funds

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. The publication isavailable to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

availability are important for knowledge transfer from universities to industries (Szulanski, 1996,
Flores et al., 2009). Some researchers believe that lack of motivations to professors (Szulanski,
1996), more-take-than-give attitude and fear of losing IP to academic publications are major
obstacles for knowledge transfer.
In some cultures, prior acquaintance and Chinese guanxi, which denotes necessity of a level oftrust among acquainted people for better KT, are considered to be important for collaboration(Hemmert, 2015). Communication gaps, non-adherence to “ho-ren-so” manner on vendor side
teams, lack of domains, legal and policy knowledge also form a formidable barrier for KT
between collaborating entities (Huong et al., 2014).
Uncertainty avoidance, the way of handling problems and fear of competitors in collaboration incase of more experienced members, can be different in culture causing problems in knowledge
sharing. Tacit and explicit knowledge sharing is essential, geographical proximity, culturaldifferences acknowledgment all contribute to improving knowledge flows (Almstedt, 2008).
Uchihira et al. (2012) analyzed knowledge transfer in the R&D project management, and pointed
out the perception gaps between university side and industry side. For example, the university
side can recognize technology and market in the same way of the industry side, but cannot
understand the corporate strategy and organizational difficulties of the company. This researchmentioned gaps in intra-national R&D collaboration, not global R&D collaboration.
Competence of bridge system engineers
The literature discusses that BSE is crucial for software outsourcing in Vietnam (Huong et al.,2014). They have tried to define roles of BSE and distinguished their working stages as (1)planning with both parties, (2) breaking down requirements bringing clarity through mind maps
animations, produce supplementary documents for both parties, (3) removing bugs, quality
checking and problem solving, (4) Documenting experience and sharing (Huong et al., 2014).
Some authors have identified specific competences of BSE (Nicholson et al., 2014, Nishinaka etal., 2015) and discussed that understanding both cultures (societal, organizational & individual),
good communication skill, good negotiation skill, expatriate, good domain knowledge on bothsides, knowledge on local economics & infrastructure and ability to maintain flat organization
structure are crucial traits expected out of a better BSE.
Research questions
Considering issues surrounding knowledge transfer in multicultural collaborative setup and also
university-industry collaboration setup, the major research questions of this study would beaimed at understanding differences in the role of BSE and BM, where priorities attached to I-I
and U-I considerably differ. Moreover, this study focuses and tries to identify difficulties salient
to cross cultural U-I R&D collaborations, from BM perspectives. The presence of people from avariety of cultural backgrounds although contribute to efficient KT, they can be considered an
important stimulator of open innovation. Hence our study tries to understand how cultural gaps
in multinational collaboration setup would be viewed from a knowledge creation perspective.

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. The publication isavailable to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

Our study also tries to understand these KT barriers from a context of collaboration between
developed and developing countries like that of Japanese companies collaborating with Indian
universities and also understand possible suggestion from BM’s perspective, that can better suchcollaborative R&D projects. To summarize, research questions that would be attempting tobroadly address are enumerated as follows,
1. Are there any differences in the role of BSE of industry-industry collaboration(especially, offshore software development) and BM of university-industry
collaboration?
2. How different are their roles in both of these scenarios?
3. What are difficulties salient to cross cultural university-industry R&D collaborations,from BM perspective?
4. How are barriers to knowledge transfer (KT) in cross cultural university-industry R&D
collaborations, viewed from knowledge creation or open innovation perspective?
5. Do these KT barriers, have any role in knowledge creation or open innovation?
6. What are perceived KT barriers, specific to R&D collaboration between developed anddeveloping countries?
7. What are possible opportunities, in terms of addressing KT hurdles, which might enhance
better KT and innovation in cross cultural university-industry collaboration?

Based on the above research questions, following research objectives were drafted for our study.

1. To understand differences in roles of Bridge SE in Industry-Industry softwaredevelopment collaboration and in R&D Bridge Manager in University-Industry R&D
collaboration.
2. To understand crucial difficulties faced by Bridge Manager in University-Industry R&D
Collaboration.
3. To understand important skills required for a good Bridge Manager in UniversityIndustry R&D Collaboration.

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. The publication isavailable to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

Figure 1. R&D Bridge Manager

In case of industry-industry collaborations, it is quite common that dedicated BSEs will beallocated from both collaborating companies and most of communications between companies
would be streamlined by help of two BSEs, acting on both sides of collaborating entities.
However, in case of university-industry collaboration, it is quite prevalent that BM are appointed
only from industry side, who must be instrumental in coordinating activities from both sides viz.,the universities and industries, as a single person-of-contact. This scenario has been depicted in
Figure 1, above. While Type 1 collaborations is popular with industries and some cases ofuniversities, Type 2 collaboration is quite unique to university-industry collaborations.

Methodology
Our study adopted a series of face-to-face semi-structured interviews with Bridge Managers. The
sample consisted of Bridge Managers who had work experience with extensive work experiencein multinational U-I collaboration set up were interviewed. Part of our sample consisted of
Bridge Managers who are currently pursuing an academic career in a research university at
Japan, having prior work experience as Bridge Managers with leading MNCs like Toshiba
Corporation, Hitachi Ltd., Fujitsu Ltd. and IBM Japan. 45-60 minutes. Interviewees had at least
5 years of experience, working as BM with these leading MNCs. Another half of the sample
considered in our study represents BM who are currently working between Japanese MNCs andThis paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. The publication isavailable to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

responsible for managing collaborative research activities with Japanese universities and otheruniversities worldwide. Each interview consisted of 45-60 minutes. Interviewees were asked
semi-structured open-ended questions related to perceived barriers to knowledge transfer in acontext of multinational university-industry collaborations, perspectives on cultural gaps,
important roles of BM in university-industry collaborations and skill sets essential for an ideal
BM.
Interviewees were given follow-up questions with example scenario to get additional information
pertaining to KT in multinational R&D collaboration setup. Skill sets of BSE from the literature
were evaluated and discussed with Interviewees and additional skills they perceived important
for a BM were documented. Interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim. The
qualitative method of content analysis was used to analyze the data obtained during theinterview. Important themes providing insights on perceived barriers to KT and skill sets of BM
were segregated.
Findings and Discussions
Qualitative findings of our study revealed that were huge overlaps between perceived barriers toknowledge transfer in multinational university-industry R&D collaboration setup and thoseexperienced by multinational industry-industry collaboration setup, which could be either R&D
oriented or project oriented. Our findings helped us arrive at subtle differences that would
differentiate a Bridge System Engineer (BSE) from a Bridge Manager (BM), where the former
works in conventional I-I collaboration setup and the latter works in a U-I R&D collaboration
setup. Our study upholds the notion that while a BM has to be necessarily a BSE, a BSE need not
be a BM, since BM might encounter a much sophisticated collaborative environment than that ofa BSE. Ensuing sections would discuss on interviewees experiences and perceptions highlighting
how I-I collaboration setup differs from U-I R&D collaboration setup and how BM operates inthis collaborative environment.
University-Industry collaborative environment
Interviewees acknowledged that university-industry R&D collaboration setup was quite different
from industry-industry collaborations. Primarily, interviewees expressed the differences inculture between university and industries at various levels. Interviewees’ felt that universities
were seldom aware of market and industry needs. Although this stance of universities is found to
be decreasing and universities are found to actively engage in technology transfer activities withindustries, industry personnel believe that universities ought to have a deeper understanding
market needs and very importantly its culture to better address problems prevalent in theconcerned market. As quoted by an interviewee,“…very important was to know more about the market to apply theknowledge to actual product… How people are spending life, what isrequired and based on that knowledge, we can produce new products andservices… in R&D environment it is very important for various people,
culture, background and people, to understand each other…”

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. The publication isavailable to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

Moreover, some interviewees opine that understanding universities’ policies, regulations andpriorities have a huge impact on successful transfer of knowledge between universities andindustries. Conflicts of interest arising in sharing of intellectual property between thecollaborating entities are found to be a huge hurdle in efficient transfer of knowledge between
universities and industries.
“We industry people, put more importance to patents. But still there aremany professors, who would not understand the importance of IPRs. They
may be like, if you’re not interested in productization, then patents are of
no use. But as I said, if you think about the productization, is very
important, then IPR is very crucial…”“From industries’ perspective having a joint patent with universities isvery tricky and almost infeasible. It greatly restricts our (industries)
freedom to utilize the knowledge for our commercial benefit andcompetitive advantage…”

Our findings supported that although language and cultural differences between universities andindustries in multinational collaboration have a huge impact on successful KT, managing budget
and timeline also emerge to be a very challenging task for industries. While businesscollaborations within industries are mostly contractual, terms and conditions dictating ownershipof IP, shares in profit and other clauses will be clearly defined upfront. However, in the case ofuniversity-industry collaborations, the financial transactions are mostly in terms of supports andgrants, which actually have notable implications for managing funds, clearly drafting ownershipover IP and other crucial terms essential for the business environment. At times, awarding grants
to universities becomes difficult for economies like Japan, as compared to US universityindustry collaborations, where huge funding in scale of thousands of dollars is common and thus
such scenarios become infeasible or quite rare for Japanese university-industry collaboration
setups. Subsequently, university-industry collaborations are sought for a long-time sustained
relationship with futuristic benefits to business. However, interviewees strongly believe thatmaintaining some kind of time frame to complete a particular collaborative activity could greatly
help industries since the market is so dynamic and rapidly changing. Industries have to cope withthis dynamic environment, needs timely inventions to maintain their competitive advantage inthe market and once a product is failing to hit the market at the right time, the business is lost
forever.
“…university people do have some time constraint. But it is completely
different from constraints of industry. In industry, if you miss the time, you
won’t get any money out of market. It is more serious, and especially indynamically changing technological environment, time taken to bring a
product to market is very important…”

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. The publication isavailable to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

Skillset of BM
Interviewees of our study upheld various skillsets.
They highlighted that skill sets expected of a good BSE are applicable and essential for all BMs
as well. As an interviewee mentioned, “…a BM has to be like a superman. He knows everything,he has power to do anything…” Good communication skills viz., technical and non-technicalcommunications, good domain knowledge on both collaborating sides, negotiation skills,
debating skills, being an expatriate, knowledge on local economic and infrastructure, flexibility
and adaptability, open-mindedness, leadership qualities, motivating personality, ability toestablish flat organization structure, empathy sharing are perceived as skills essential for a good
Bridge SE. While a BM is expected to have all these skill sets, complexities of universityindustry collaboration environment necessitates BM to understand differences in priorities,
cultures and constraints of two different entities i.e., universities and industries. A good BM has
to understand university setup very well in order to smoothly coordinate with professors and as
well as business managers to successfully transfer knowledge in such collaborative environment.
BM should be well aware of university policies dictating the protocols involved in collaborative
research activities and funding allocations, time line management issues pertaining to university
research activities. Following quotes from interviewees supports these stances,“…But when the U-I collaboration is conducted, the language is moredifferent than industry-industry collaboration. Technical language
difference is always there. Meanings are different…”“…I should learn both cultures equally. I came from business sector, but
first of all I need to learn university culture, system, policies andeverything. So I think, like BM should learn both sides…”
Added to difficulties faced with differences in language, BM interacting between universities
and industries should be fluent in technical language across different hierarchies of bothcollaborating sides, as well as across collaborating disciplines. An interviewee expressed that,“…a BM has to know that same terminology used by physics professor
and electronics professor could slightly differ in meaning, depending on
their expertise and context. Moreover, BM has to be aware ofterminologies and keywords across various hierarchies of people withinboth institutions, like managers, CEOs, CTOs, engineers on industry sideand professors, students and support staffs at university level. Thus it is acomplex set of links between multilayered people…”
The interviewee added that BM’s roles doesn’t stop with understanding university research setup
but also motivate professors and research students towards successful completion ofThis paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. The publication isavailable to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

collaborative R&D projects. BM should be aware and accommodative of professors’ freedom of
research and manage time constraints in delivering outputs during various stages of collaborative
R&D projects.
Developed and developing countries collaborations
Although many interviewees didn’t feel any specific barriers to successful knowledge transfer
between university and industry setup across developing and developed economies, few
interviewees highlighted the importance of skills mismatch between entities of collaborating
countries. As mentioned by an interviewee (country X being a developing country),“…Excellent technology is brought into country X. But after few years,
such systems would collapse. We need some maintenance. For
maintenance we have to educate some technician in country X… That
maintenance technician in country X believed our technologies nevercollapsed. But I tell them sorry, I ask them to first learn more about theequipment and how to maintain it. These kinds of variations in skill levels
made some difficulty…”
Other interviewees, however, acknowledged that many differences are prevalent in collaborative
setups between developing and developed economies. They might include differences in legal
structures, infrastructure, people skill sets, non-availability of adequate supply chains, nonavailability of technologies, market need differences and industrial standards mismatches.
Scope for improvement
Interviewees strongly believed that BM has a huge role in facilitating a harmonious ecosystem
for smooth transfer of knowledge between universities and industries spread across geographicalboundaries. As an interviewee mentioned,“…I think, “BA” which means a place or environment, where knowledge
is created and exchanged. For e.g. some opportunity to work together,such kind of BA should not be in Indian side or Japanese side. We shouldfind some another BA in developing countries outside Japan & India. Thus
we sometimes believe Japanese values are best in world and also Indianpeople believe our culture is long and big. They believe these cultures
should be best one. But inside every country, they believe like that.
Outside you can feel and learn different cultures. If you and me go into
Africa and try to get some problems solved in Africa, we should learn
together with African culture and civilization or something like that. Thatmakes work together, I think, that condition will give some important
opportunity to believe each other and to learn about each other. So thecoordination becomes more effective…”
BM should also facilitate proper understanding of “KACHIKAN” meaning “values andpriorities” in Japanese, between collaborating countries and entities so that successful transfer ofThis paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. The publication isavailable to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

knowledge could be achieved. An interviewee hinted that establishing multicultural universities,
which has students and faculties working from different cultures, regions, and nations can greatly
minimize efforts of BM. He strongly believed that such multicultural university setups already
would have overcome cultural barriers to some extent and it is easy to collaborate with such kindof students as well as faculties. Also, he emphasized that it becomes important in this context
that young minds from various nations should travel and interact with many cultures to have abetter understanding and ease the process of knowledge transfer in future. As mentioned from his
quotes,“…it is very important to have an international kind of education inelementary and middle school, so that they become internationallyadaptable to tackle those situations with differences between two regions.
To make it change rapidly, it would be one of solution to dispatch young
people in different culture. For e.g., dispatching Japanese people to Indiaand inviting Indian young people to Japan to understand Japanese culture
in both ways could accelerate the process towards knowledge creation…”
Some interviewees had an opinion that having a uniform university evaluation mechanism could
greatly normalize the efforts of a BM in collaborating with universities from different regions.
As quoted by an interviewee referring to two countries A and B.
“…research portfolio evaluation mechanism is with country A, not withcountry B. So having such setup will be nice if country B also has that
setup and we can expect same standards of operation and protocols
across various regions…”
Added to these scopes of improvements, interviewees also supported the fact that support of
information technologies like teleconferencing could greatly bridge the differences between
collaborating entities across various regions of the world. However, they also have a strong
belief that frequent visits to collaborating institutes and adequate timely feedback could also
greatly help an effective transfer of technologies between universities and industries.
Conclusion
The study gave insights on complexities that surround a U-I collaboration in a multicultural
setup. With differences burgeoning at various levels of U-I collaboration, BM’s knowledge on
differences in “Kachikan” between collaborating entities can greatly improve KT between
university and industries. Understanding cultural, language and individual level differences
between universities and industries have been upheld as vital for BM in multicultural U-I
collaboration. BM finds IP conflicts as an important barrier and thus understanding of licensing
policies of universities and legal framework of collaborating countries can greatly benefit BM’s
performance. The study was aimed at providing implications to collaborating entities, viz.,universities, industries and coordinating entity the Bridge Manager. Insights from interviewees’
perception could help universities amend their IP and licensing policies to facilitate easy transfer
of knowledge between universities and industries. Secondly, industries planning for aThis paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. The publication isavailable to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

collaboration with universities can employ appropriate BMs who has an understanding of both
university and industry culture at societal, organizational, and individual levels. BMs who strive
to become more competent in bridging R&D collaborations between universities and industries
may harness the necessary skill sets highlighted in this study to better their capabilities as a better
BM.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all interviewees of industries and universities who kindly supported
our research project and gave us valuable insights.

Reference
Almstedt, Karin. "Knowledge transfer in a cross-cultural context." Bachelor Thesis diss., The
Swedish Business School, 2008.
Barbolla, Ana M. Bernardos and Corredera, Jose Ramon Casar. “Critical factors for success in
University-Industry research projects.” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 21(5),599-616, 2009.
Bruneel, Johan, et al., “Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry
collaboration.” Research Policy, 39(2010), 858-868, 2010.
Flores, Myrna, et al., "Universities as key enablers to develop new collaborative environments
for innovation: successful experiences from Switzerland and India." International Journal of
Production Research, 47:17, 4935-4953, 2009.
Forster, Nick. “Expatriates and the impact of cross-cultural training.” Human Resource
Management Journal, 10(3), 63-78, 2000.
Hemmert, Martin, "The relevance of inter-personal and interorganizational ties for interaction
quality and outcomes of research collaborations in South Korea." Duisburger Arbeitspapiere
Ostasienwissenschaften, No. 102/2015, 2015.
Huong, Nguyen Thu, et al., "The knowledge-bridging process in software offshoring from Japan
to Vietnam." The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 64:9, 129, 2014.
Krishna, S. et al., “Managing cross-cultural issues in global software outsourcing.”
Communications of the ACM, 47(4), 62-66, 2004.
Nicholson, Brian and Sahay, Sundeep, "Embedded knowledge and offshore softwaredevelopment." Information and Organization, 14, 329-365, 2004.

This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 4-7 December 2016. The publication isavailable to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

Nishinaka, Miwa et al., "Emergence of common tacit knowledge in an international IT project: acase study between Japan and Singapore." International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, 8(3), 533-551, 2015.
Szulanski, Gabriel. "Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm." Strategic management journal, 17, 27-43, 1996.
Uchihira, Naoshi, et al., "Knowledge Transfer in R&D Project Management - Application to
Business-academia Collaboration Project." Portland International Conference on Management
Engineering and Technology (PICMET 2012), 3473-3480, 2012.