2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2006.02.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

University to business technology transfer—UK and USA comparisons

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
110
0
10

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 138 publications
(122 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
2
110
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…Yet, these national innovation systems appear to have evolved into weak entities, with human capital remaining low and science and technology institutions, especially universities, not fully performing an enabling role (Bebbington and Thiele 1993;Bastos and Cooper 2005;Beddington and Farrington 2007;Metcalfe 2010). A multitude of challenges have been identified in the literature, covering a broad geography (Bercovitz and Feldman 2006;Anderson, Daim and Lavoie 2007;Decter, Bennett and Leseure 2007;Hervas-Oliver et al 2012;Ranga and Etzkowitz 2013). These relate to overcoming cultural/epistemic differences, defining accurately end-user needs, demonstrating the benefits of new technologies to potential end-users, providing 'knowhow' and taking advantage of government institutions and networks that facilitate dissemination and influence user acceptance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet, these national innovation systems appear to have evolved into weak entities, with human capital remaining low and science and technology institutions, especially universities, not fully performing an enabling role (Bebbington and Thiele 1993;Bastos and Cooper 2005;Beddington and Farrington 2007;Metcalfe 2010). A multitude of challenges have been identified in the literature, covering a broad geography (Bercovitz and Feldman 2006;Anderson, Daim and Lavoie 2007;Decter, Bennett and Leseure 2007;Hervas-Oliver et al 2012;Ranga and Etzkowitz 2013). These relate to overcoming cultural/epistemic differences, defining accurately end-user needs, demonstrating the benefits of new technologies to potential end-users, providing 'knowhow' and taking advantage of government institutions and networks that facilitate dissemination and influence user acceptance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Collaboration to support co-innovation activities can be more or less intense, and also may be formal or informal. [6], [7], [8] In terms of time one can find short-term and long-term collaboration agreements. Short-term collaborations generally consist of on-demand problem solving with predefined outcomes.…”
Section: Drivers and Barriers In Industry-academia Collaborationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Venturing activity is informed and influenced by institutional norms and culture. The motivation for technology transfer, and the choice of transfer instrument, are driven by ecosystem norms and universitybased incentive structures (Decter et al, 2007;Henrekson and Rosenberg, 2001). …”
Section: University-centric Ecosystemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Shifting from a scientific orientation to a more market-driven approach creates tensions for the individual, university and the venture. The deeply embedded culture within academic institutions preferentially focuses on research and publications at the expense of patent and commercialization activities and is, therefore, at odds with an entrepreneurial approach (Decter et al, 2007).…”
Section: Regenerative Medicine Ecosystems: Venturing Under Irreduciblmentioning
confidence: 99%