Search results

Improving the commercialization of university research has become a national priority. Most existing programs focus on training and supporting faculty and students to be the entrepreneur. However, programs are also needed to train and support those who will serve the entrepreneur. This chapter asserts that professionals with specific expertise in serving entrepreneurs are a critical, yet overlooked, part of the “innovation ecosystem” necessary to commercialize university research. It provides an overview of the Entrepreneurial Law Clinic at the University of Washington, which provides a multidisciplinary teaching, research, and service platform that assists University spin-offs while developing the next generation innovation ecosystem. Bringing together law, business, and engineering students to work with tech transfer licensing officers and faculty researchers to spin off a university technology involves many challenges. Yet, it can be done and the benefits are manifold. This chapter outlines three key issues for this kind of program. First, who is the client: the tech transfer office or the faculty researcher? Second, how to mediate among the different visions for how to commercialize the technology through the spin-off – including whether the technology is ready for commercialization or needs to undergo further translational work. And third, how to ensure that all the different students are being properly supervised and that all project members are keeping appropriate confidentiality toward the technology and business plans. The chapter shows how the missteps, conflicts, and confusion that naturally arise for each team project actually provide the best teaching moments for team members, supervisors, and faculty alike.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has a comprehensive and coherent innovation system producing significant outcomes. However, as with every system, continuous improvement is required to optimize system performance. This chapter analyzes KSA’s innovation system based on the 2018 Global Innovation Index indicators among 127 countries. The chapter identifies the highlighted performance areas of the system and its market failures. In turn, the systemic analysis of the country’s NIS reveals the strong interactions but also the system’s failures, proposing a set of action policies to be undertaken that will generate a significant improvement over the expected results of the system. The main system failures identified are the low knowledge diffusion or knowledge spillover effects and the minimal access to equity funding for startups, or the absence of a risk capital culture. However, the country’s innovation system is coherent, presenting strong interaction linkages between the research, innovation, and commercialization node. It presents a remarkable improvement since 2011, presenting an above-average performance in terms of allocated resources for research and innovation.

Traditionally, firms have been dependent on internal sources such as their own employees – and up to a certain extent, on some external sources, their customers – for innovation. However, in the current scenario of technological dynamism, firms are exploring multiple sources to generate ideas for innovation. Therefore, there is a need to understand the relative effect of various sources of innovations on a firm’s performance.

We offer a conceptual framework where we identify six distinct sources of innovations – firm, customers, external network, competition, macro-environment, and technology and how they create value for focal firms especially their brand equity. We introduce a taxonomy of various costs and benefits related to innovations. We then argue using our proposed taxonomy to understand the relative strengths of various sources of innovation affecting a firm’s brand equity.

We discuss and compare the relative effects of these sources of innovations on a firm’s brand equity by rank-ordering the sources. The customers and the technology as a source of innovation have the maximum impact on the firm’s brand equity followed by the marginal impact of macro-environment and external network of a firm. The firm itself has a moderate impact on its brand equity, while competition has the minimal impact. Further, we also discuss how the relationship is moderated by different innovation characteristics (nature and type of innovations).

The main practical implication is to create awareness among managers about various costs and benefits of the proposed six sources of innovations and their effects on brand equity. Managers would be able to prioritize their sources of innovation based on firms’ current needs, and whether to focus on lower costs or building higher brand equity in the scarce resource environment.

We offer a comprehensive list of six sources of innovation, build a conceptual framework wherein we discuss the relative strengths of these sources affecting brand equity.

The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the role of higher education establishments in Middle Eastern countries specifically Saudi Arabia. The contributions of higher education establishments are particularly significant in relation to regional and national innovation system, which have been earmarked as engine for growth of the local economy across the region. Our study has chartered the dynamic nature of higher education in the region and their networking capabilities in order to be recognized as key stakeholders of the emerging economy. The study is informed by theoretical dimensions of “open innovation” and how the framework can accommodate the dynamic nature of higher education establishments in order to provide further impetus to ambitious projects such as Vision 2030 in Saudi Arabia. Our study is limited by further empirical evidence but has implication for the region in offering new insights around the evolving conceptualization of entrepreneurial universities and national innovation system.

Measuring the economic and social impact of innovation is a nontrivial act. Using an embedded analysis method this paper examines the Grameen Bank and Microsoft Corporation as examples of social and commercial entrepreneurship. Both organizations embraced radical innovation that was scaleable and created wealth. They also both had profound economic and social impact on the world.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to advance understanding of regional industry or innovation clusters and the opportunities that the cluster framework provides policymakers for delivering economic impact, clarifying economic priorities, and coordinating disparate programmatic efforts, and to articulate some basic principles for formulating cluster strategies.

Methodology/approach – As the cluster concept enters its third decade and the body of related literature reaches a new level of maturity a consensus has emerged among academics and policy thinkers on the economic benefits of clusters. In fact, clusters have emerged as major focus of economic and policy discussion just now – in what the authors dub a “cluster moment” – by dint of their demonstrated practical impact, their value in paradigm discussions, and their potential utility in policy reform. The chapter reviews the benefits of clusters and traces their ascendance – and re-emergence post-recession – among policy thinkers.

Findings – New research confirms that strong clusters tend to deliver positive benefits to workers, firms, and regions. As a paradigm, they reflect the nature of the real economy and as a matter of policymaking, clusters provide a framework for rethinking and refocusing economic policy. In pursuing cluster-based economic development strategies, policy leaders should not try to create clusters; use data to target interventions, drive design, and track performance; focus initiatives on addressing discrete gaps in performance or binding constraints on cluster growth; maximize impact by leveraging pre-existing cluster-relevant programs; align efforts vertically as well as horizontally; and let the private sector lead. All three tiers of the nation's federalist system have distinct and complementary roles to play in advancing the cluster paradigm.

Research limitations/implications (if applicable) – The paper includes no new/original data.

Practical implications (if applicable) – Given that clusters have emerged as a major focus of economics and policy, this chapter lays out a core set of general principles for pursuing cluster-based economic development strategies – and for avoiding common pitfalls – to which policymakers can adhere.

Originality/value of paper – The chapter advances cluster thinking and cluster strategies as a paradigm with the potential to accelerate regional economic growth and assist with the nation's needed restructuring and rebalancing toward a more productive post-recession economy.

In a dynamic environment where underlying competition is “for the market,” this chapter examines what happens when entrants and incumbents can instead negotiate for the market. For instance, this might arise when an entrant innovator can choose to license to or be acquired by an incumbent firm (i.e., engage in cooperative commercialization). It is demonstrated that, depending upon the level of firms’ potential dynamic capabilities, there may or may not be gains to trade between incumbents and entrants in a cumulative innovation environment; that is, entrants may not be adequately compensated for losses in future innovative potential. This stands in contrast to static analyses that overwhelmingly identify positive gains to trade from such cooperation.

Commercialization of research projects at the university, in particular, its efficiency and performance, have attracted little attention in the empirical literature to date. This despite the fact that commercialization of university knowledge is increasingly seen as a third task of universities and understanding of what enhances and what blocks the processes involved, is virtually lacking, particularly on the project level. The purpose of this chapter is therefore to identify factors that influence the performance of university-driven knowledge projects, including efficiency, in the context of commercialization of knowledge at universities. In this context, the study employs Data Envelop Analysis combined with Rough-Set Analysis on a sample of 42 projects in the Netherlands. The major factors influencing overall performance in commercialization turn out to be years of collaboration with large firms and efficiency in use of resources in the projects, but the affinity of the project managers at university with the market also plays a role. The best overall results in commercialization (introduction to market in a relatively short time) are gained with a longer period of collaboration with large firms (5–10 years) and a medium level of efficiency. There are also some contradictory trends. The chapter concludes with implications of the results, as well as some future research paths.