Search results

Universities face incredibly difficult, complex decisions concerning the degree to which they participate in the process of commercializing research. The U.S. government has made an explicit policy decision to allow funded entities to obtain patents and thereby has encouraged participation in the commercialization of federally funded research. The Bayh-Dole Act enables universities to participate in the commercialization process, but it does not obligate or constrain them to pursue any particular strategy with respect to federally funded research. Universities remain in the driver's seat and must decide carefully the extent to which they wish to participate in the commercialization process.The conventional view of the role of patents in the university research context is that patent-enabled exclusivity improves the supply-side functioning of markets for university research results as well as those markets further downstream for derivative commercial end-products. Both the reward and commercialization theories of patent law take patent-enabled exclusivity as the relevant means for fixing a supply-side problem – essentially, the undersupply of private investment in the production of patentable subject matter or in the development and commercialization of patentable subject matter that would occur in the absence of patent-enabled exclusivity.While the supply-side view of the role of patents in the university research context is important, a view from the demand side is needed to fully appreciate the role of patents in the university research context and to fully inform university decisions about the extent to which they wish to participate in the commercialization process. Introducing patents into the university research system, along with a host of other initiatives aimed at tightening the relationship between universities and industry, is also (if not primarily) about increasing connectivity between university science and technology research systems and the demands of industry for both university research outputs (research results and human capital) and upstream infrastructural capital necessary to produce such outputs.In this chapter, I explore how university science and technology research systems perform economically as infrastructural capital and explain how these systems generate social value. I explain how the availability of patents, coupled with decreased government funding, may lead to a slow and subtle shift in the allocation of infrastructure resources.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, the article explores an understudied side of invention commercialization–the rejection of business as something “dirty” among Russian scientists. As such, the paper contributes to the individual-level explanations of innovation promotion, hence balancing extant literature's excessive focus on institutional explanations. Second, the article suggests that Russian scientists' rejection of business is rooted in broader Russian work ethics rift between “material” and “ideational” aspects of life. As such, the paper shows how dominant collective values refract in the management practice of specific social class, i.e. of scientists.

To analyze the rift between material and ideational aspects of Russian scientists' work, the article employs directed content analysis (DCA) of in-depth interviews with 45 Russian scholars. To address credibility bias of the research findings stemming from DCA, I further draw on the survey of existing studies, researches and polls highlighting Russian population attitudes toward the dichotomy between “material” and “ideal” realms.

This study argues that Russian scientists' likelihood of invention commercialization is positively associated with their ability to integrate in a personal psyche business and science as equally valuable facets of life.

The article identifies the three groups of scientists – opportunity-seekers, idealists and integrators – with different attitudes to invention commercialization. The article shows how policymakers should apply institutional incentives differently to each group of scientists to achieve higher rates of invention commercialization.

Consistent with the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship, the purpose of this paper is to recognise the complementary entrepreneurial role of knowledge transfer intermediary organisations in the context of two Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries: Poland and the Czech Republic.

The aim was achieved through empirical studies relying on multiple-case study methodology and cross-case analysis covering 21 cases of commercialisation intermediary institutions. It was assumed that institutional and geographical conditions can impact the knowledge-based opportunity exploitation between different national economies.

Research confirmed that scientists in Poland and the Czech Republic are the central figures of the commercialisation process in terms of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition; however, they need support from intermediary organisations in many other entrepreneurial activities. The history of knowledge commercialisation and its intermediating entities in these countries is relatively young and spin-off company creation is not a common practice. Expertise knowledge, creativity and self-confidence admitted, by the respondents in both countries, can be an optimistic sign for the future efforts in fostering innovativeness of CEE countries. Stronger support of formal institutional framework and policies in those countries is expected.

Science commercialisation has lately attracted much attention, but only a few studies have tried to develop conceptual frameworks considering knowledge-based entrepreneurship and knowledge commercialisation in their relations and subsequential roles. Also, over the past couple of years literature in this area has expanded mainly relying on observations in the USA and Western European countries. Hence, this study allowed to collect findings from CEE countries for which data are still insufficient but can significantly contribute to the theory development. Also, some recommendations for policymakers arise from this study. Further research could validate the results in an extensive quantitative study.

This chapter addresses the behavioral problems and conflicts observed in multidisciplinary university commercialization teams. We examined 59 commercialization projects at one U.S. university, supplemented by a similar number of projects at other universities in the United States and Europe. We applied well-established ideas about distinctive “thought worlds,” including both cognitive and motivational factors to understand patterns of selective perception and issue prioritization. The resulting analysis allows us to draw tentative conclusions regarding improved management practices aimed at managing the conflicts and improving university commercialization initiatives. We discuss the generalizability of the results.

This paper aims to reveal the challenges and problems of technology commercialization in an industrial development organization in Iran.

To achieve the objective of this paper, a mixed-methods case study was used. Initially, 15 in-depth interviews with technology commercialization experts were conducted and 43 themes were extracted as problems of technology commercialization. The outcomes of the interviews informed the development of the questionnaire. Subsequently, a survey of 205 experts was performed to examine the responses obtained from the interviews. The main problems were identified through exploratory factor analysis and evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis.

Seven factors are identified as the main difficulties of technology commercialization, including weakness in the commercialization process, challenges of the business environment, weak organizational structure, inefficient project management, ineffective cooperation with non-governmental sectors, failure to collaborate with stakeholders and conflicting political behaviors.

The outcomes of this research inform the organization’s managers of the poor conditions and barriers of the technology commercialization process. The findings also help managers to overcome the challenges that are under the control of the organization.

This paper contributes to the knowledge on technology commercialization by exploring the main factors that form barriers to and difficulties of technology commercialization in an industrial development organization and suggesting appropriate solutions.

The purpose of this study was to explore the strategies performed by innovation actors to ensure commercialisation success, and to determine which of these strategies significantly predict a successful commercialisation within a public university context.

The strategies conceptualised for this study included open innovation, strategic leadership and collaborative advantage. A total of 222 public university academics participated in an anonymous survey and were asked to provide responses on their innovation strategies. These responses were then explored to assess the construct validity of the survey instrument and further analysed using a hierarchical multiple regression technique to test the hypotheses and to compare several regression models.

The results suggested that strategic leadership and open innovation strategies are significant predictors for successful commercialisation with coefficient of multiple determination (R²) of 21 per cent. This study, however, found that collaborative advantage does not significantly determine commercialisation success.

The study was limited by the empirical evidence that was based on cross-sectional survey data of public university academics. A qualitative study with other groups of participants such as from the industries would further confirm the relationship between innovation strategies and commercialisation success. Future research should replicate this study in other settings to improve the generalisation of the findings.

This study discovered strategic leadership as the most dominant predictor for commercialisation success in a public university context followed by open innovation strategy. It confirms the strategic roles of leaders in innovation attempts and provides further understanding about the openness strategy in innovation.

In 2003, there was a concern among policymakers that spin-outs were being given undue prominence in consideration of the research commercialisation performance of UK Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) (Lambert, 2003). The aim of this research was to investigate what issues lay behind the data reported on spin-out activity by UK HEIs in the period 1998–2002.

University inventions are increasingly transferred to industry by market mechanisms involving licensing and start-up ventures. This chapter explores the ways in which entrepreneurship education can benefit the professionals involved in this process. We focus on graduate education since the professions typically involved require one or more graduate degrees, such as the Doctor of Philosophy in the case of scientists and engineers or professional degrees such as the Master of Business Administration or Doctor of Jurisprudence in the case of business professionals or attorneys. Introducing entrepreneurship education to graduate programs presents a challenge since graduate education is highly structured. We present a model that preserves the in-depth disciplinary structure of degree programs while bringing Ph.D. students in science and engineering together with MBA and JD students to explore the interface of technology, business, and legal issues in commercialization of the science and engineering student's research.

Since the 1980s, US universities have greatly increased attention given to innovation and entrepreneurship out of a genuine commitment to enhancing American competitiveness. Although regional innovation and entrepreneurship can be enhanced by universities in multiple ways, the primary metrics of “success” remain patenting, licensing rates, and university spin-outs. While these metrics can be a useful proxy for the entrepreneurial university they tend to understate the many important contributions universities, including non-research intensive universities, make to their regional economies. In this chapter, we introduce a framework of capabilities that are essential to nurturing ecosystems of innovation and entrepreneurship at the regional level. We then describe the varied ways in which universities can support the development of these capabilities. Finally, we provide a framework of metrics, which can more comprehensively capture the value that universities represent to innovation and entrepreneurship in their regions.

Scientists are known for their good ideas, but packaging those ideas into a commercial format requires skills, funding, and processes for which many scientists and their research institutions are all too often not equipped. The Victorian Government of Australia has developed a successful initiative designed to facilitate and commercialise scientific innovations. The purpose of this paper is to document the processes and the lessons drawn from the establishment of the Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) Initiative.

This case study describes the Australian state of Victoria's STI Initiative over a four year period from its inception. The program was designed to enhance the ability to compete globally through commercialisation of Victoria's science capability and to facilitate greater industry innovation through collaboration with the science community.

The STI case demonstrates how the program has exceeded expectations with proven return on investment in less than four years. The case describes the STI's history, structure, strategies, processes, and methods of monitoring and evaluation. It also describes problems and difficulties that have occurred and how these were overcome. One of the major findings of the STI Initiative concerns the development of governance structures for each project. Rather than introducing rigidity and decision speed‐bumps, the introduction of well‐designed governance structures provides rapid and useful feedback and favourable control measures.

A large part of managing STI projects involves the establishment of funded grants and the development and management of commercial objectives and cooperation between the science and commercial sectors. It is argued that this successful format for commercialising science and facilitating innovation can be templated and therefore duplicated by governments almost anywhere in the world.

The lessons from this case study support the argument that there is a need for structure to formalise a successful relationship between industry, science, government, and investors. The paper provides a format for such a structure based on the experiences of the STI Initiative based in Victoria, Australia.