Australian Framework for the Commercialisation of University Scientific Research

Collier, Alan

doi:10.1080/08109020601172894

Cited by 13 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is mainly due to the fact that Bayh-Dole-like legislation has not been enacted in Australia and ownership of intellectual property produced by publicly funded research is governed by the general law of Australia, which entitles employers the rights to the benefits of the employee's inventions (Collier, 2007). Boundary-spanning structures and networks of university research commercialisation in Australia are discussed next.…”

Section: Institutional Enablersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Commercialisation, an initiative of the Queensland government, helps businesses and universities to commercialise their Research and Development (R&D) outcomes (Collier, 2007 …”

Section: Boundary-spanning Structures and Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…was not considered as a direct input for the second production stage since there is no formal contract for scientists at Australian universities to disclose inventions (Collier, 2007).…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This programme was established in 1990 to provide a linkage between industry and researchers in means of competitive grants in addition to providing industry-sponsored education for university graduates (Collier, 2007).…”

Section: List Of Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…R&D activities being outsourced (Schuelke-Leech, 2013), and the main R&D organisations in Australia are universities and other higher research institutes (Collier, 2007). Therefore, university research commercialisation strategies such as research contracts, cooperative R&D projects, and consultancy contracts will be directly promoted, whereas other university research commercialisation strategies will be indirectly enhanced (Chapple et al, 2005;Powers & McDougall, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

University technology transfer performance in Australia

Alhomayden¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

University technology transfer is considered to be an important driver of national innovation and regional economic development. However, previous studies on university technology transfer productivity and efficiency have not evaluated the relative efficiency of Australian universities in technology transfer. In the first study of this thesis, secondary data was used to conduct data envelopment analysis to measure the technical efficiency of Australian universities in producing four technology transfer related outputs, namely the number of invention disclosures, the number of licenses executed, the amount of licensing royalty income and the number of spin-offs created with university equity. Universities were then ranked according to the average technical efficiency scores for producing the four technology transfer related outputs. Subsequently, taking differences between universities in technology transfer efficiency into account; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 University Technology Transfer Office (UTTO) representatives to identify 12 antecedents of university technology transfer efficiency.The literature on university technology transfer has proposed individual, organisational and environmental determinants to superior university technology transfer performance.However, most of the previous studies on university technology transfer productivity and efficiency have not made a theoretical contribution to the field which might have limited the generalisability of their findings. In the second study of this thesis, the Resource-Based Theory (RBT) was adopted to examine and explain performance differences between universities in technology transfer considering three resource factors, namely the number of ARC Linkage funded projects (financial capital), the number of UTTO staff holding a PhD (human capital) and the joining of a UTTO to a consortium (social capital). Using primary and secondary data, these resource factors were regressed against six university technology transfer performance measures, namely the number of invention disclosures, the number of filed patents, the number of executed licenses, the amount of licensing royalty income, the number of all spin-offs created and the number of spin-offs created with university equity.Empirical findings show that the application of financial, human and social capital matters for technology transfer performance. UTTOs that possess these tangible and intangible resources report higher performance on most of the performance measures applied.Previous studies have not established a relationship between the organisational structure of UTTOs and their performance. In the third study of this thesis, the RBT was adopted to 3 | P a g e examine and explain performance differences between universities in technology transfer considering four resource factors in relation to the organisational structure of UTTOs; centralisation, specialisation, configurational autonomy and financial dependence. Using primary and secondary data, these resource factors ...

show abstract

Section: Institutional Enablersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Commercialisation, an initiative of the Queensland government, helps businesses and universities to commercialise their Research and Development (R&D) outcomes (Collier, 2007 …”

Section: Boundary-spanning Structures and Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…was not considered as a direct input for the second production stage since there is no formal contract for scientists at Australian universities to disclose inventions (Collier, 2007).…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: List Of Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

University technology transfer performance in Australia

Alhomayden¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Open Innovation in Universities: The Relationship Between Innovation and Commercialisation

Razak

Murray

Roberts

2014

Knowl Process Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing calls from university stakeholders to optimise innovation capabilities has never been more urgent given the increasing link between industry and universities. However, innovation activities that underpin the commercialisation attempts of universities are seldom translated into commercialisation success. This is mainly attributed to poor management of innovation processes between innovation networks. Empirical evidence indicates that trust relationships between innovation actors are difficult to achieve because of the perceived risk of disclosure, managerial complexity and conflicts of culture. The purpose of this review paper is to examine how open innovation within universities enhances innovation practices that lead to commercialisation success. Other connecting variables that embody trust, motivation to innovate and strategic leadership are equally important. Several hypotheses are developed, and a research model connects the innovation constructs. This paper is expected to make a significant contribution to connecting literatures that inform successful university‐led and industry‐led partnerships. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract