University technology transfer: A conceptual model of impacting factors and phased process

Kim, Jisun; Daim, Tuğrul U.; Anderson, T.R.

doi:10.1109/picmet.2009.5261803

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 83 publications

(180 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, Lipinski et al (2008) looked into some organizational and personal factors that could affect the KTE process in a university environment, highlighting the following variables: KTE tradition of the university and internal policy, reputation of the university, institutional environment (culture and organizational rules on academic entrepreneurship) and faculty members' attitude toward KTE or entrepreneurship. Finally, Kim et al (2009), after conducting an extensive literature review on university technology transfer, proposed a list of university characteristics that could influence knowledge transfer process, most of them institutional factors. These factors were university mission and goals toward technology transfer, recognized academic prestige and high quality research, university size, UTTO size and experience.…”

Section: Institutional Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open innovation in universities

Meléndez

Garrido‐Moreno

2012

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &Amp; Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to investigate the main factors affecting researcher engagement in knowledge transfer exchanges (KTE) in an Open Innovation (OI) context, devoting special attention to specific factors such as personal and professional profile, institutional variables, social networks and recognition. Design/methodology/approach -An extensive literature review was conducted, focusing on current studies concerning the OI concept and research lines, OI and universities, KTE, and the factors affecting researcher engagement in university KTE. Based on this review a conceptual framework was proposed, including four main factors that affect KTE researcher engagement (personal and professional, institutional, social networks and recognition). The assumptions of this framework were explored in an empirical study involving 382 senior researchers, acting as leaders of different research groups, at Spanish universities. This was followed by univariate, bivariate and multivariate statistical analysis. Findings -Results show that, apart from recognition, most of the proposed factors affect researcher engagement in KTE processes. The social network factors appear to be the most important, as all items were significant in affecting the engagement of researchers in these processes. Research limitations/implications -Both the study and the statistical analysis are exploratory, therefore results should be treated with caution. Moreover, the data were collected from only one country, hence, in order to improve validity, additional data would be needed. Practical implications -Social networks (between researchers, businesses, university administrators, University Technology Transfer Office directors, etc.) should be promoted in order to improve researcher involvement in university KTE in an OI context. Originality/value -There is a lack of research literature discussing factors affecting researcher engagement in KTE processes. Moreover, researcher involvement is a key factor in contributing to the success of KTE. This paper provides a thorough discussion of these factors and proposes a conceptual framework with which they may be studied in the context of OI.

show abstract

Section: Institutional Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open innovation in universities

Meléndez

Garrido‐Moreno

2012

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &Amp; Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Universities typically focus on traditional objectives such as teaching, research and knowledge transfer. The efficiency of universities differs across these objectives, as some universities place higher value on one or more other mission-related objectives (Kim et al , 2009). In addition, the objective functions of universities may be oriented in different interests (Sorensen and Chambers, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the efficiency of the Colombian higher education system: a two-stage approach

Moreno-Gómez

Calleja-Blanco

Moreno-Gómez

2019

IJEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the efficiency of the Colombian higher education system, differentiating between public and private universities. Design/methodology/approach A data envelopment analysis (DEA) model is applied to separately and jointly evaluate the teaching and research efficiencies of universities. The empirical application considers a sample of 78 Colombian universities across the period 2015–2017. A two-stage DEA is performed in which DEA scores are first evaluated and then regressed on potential covariates via truncated regression. Findings Public universities outperform their private counterparts in terms of teaching and research efficiency, whereas private universities have higher global efficiency. Furthermore, the proportion of PhD faculty positively impacts all dimensions of efficiency and in fact is the only variable improving research efficiency. Research limitations/implications First, the data do not permit a direct analysis of the impact of improvements in resources or capabilities on knowledge transfer. Second, policies and their efficiency may be influenced by differences in cultural contexts, regulatory frameworks and knowledge transfer activities. Finally, the country specificity of this research study calls for obvious caution when generalizing and interpreting its findings. Practical implications The analysis of this data set will help decision and policy makers identify resources that are used efficiently by universities and interventions for improving resource management by inefficient universities. Originality/value Few studies have addressed the efficiency of higher education in developing economies. This paper contributes to the literature by applying a two-stage methodological approach to estimate the efficiency of Colombian universities and provide a better understanding of the factors driving university efficiency.

show abstract

“…Patenting, Licensing, and start-up are the most frequently discussed and relevant technology transfer methods in the literature, while a few studies emphasized the importance of other methods such as consulting, training, and exchange programs [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commercialization Type of Research Results in Technology Transfer: a Review of Determination Strategies

Kusumaputri¹,

Isnasari²

2016

Proceedings of the 2016 Global Conference on Business, Management and Entrepreneurship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Technology transfer is a downstream form of research and development result. Research result can be transferred in many kinds of commercialization type, including technology licensing and established a new company based on technology (Start-up Company). The success of technology transfer is determined by the selection of research result and commercialization types. Centre for Innovation as a division which has duties and function as the Technology Transfer Office (TTO) has already conducted these two types. This paper aims to analyze the various form of existing research result in LIPI and appropriate commercialization type. The method used in this paper is a qualitative descriptive, through information searching related to the topics from written source and interviews. In this paper, we found that research result could be licensed which is the result is a process and require further processing to apply it. Whereas research result to be transferred to the new company is the result in product form and can be implemented directly.

show abstract

University technology transfer: A conceptual model of impacting factors and phased process

Cited by 5 publications

References 83 publications

Open innovation in universities

Open innovation in universities

Measuring the efficiency of the Colombian higher education system: a two-stage approach

Commercialization Type of Research Results in Technology Transfer: a Review of Determination Strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About