Search results

This study examines the perception and attitudes of academicians regarding factors that influence the commercialization of university research.

The data sample was drawn using a proportionate stratified sampling approach. A self-administered survey was used to obtain data regarding the perception of academicians on the factors that contribute to research commercialization. A total of 131 academicians completed the survey. Multiple regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses.

The results showed that two factors are significant and positively related with commercialization: the academician's behaviour and University-Industry collaboration. Surprisingly, the factors of innovativeness and Intellectual Property management did not have a significant relationship with commercialization.

For future work, researchers should conduct in-depth interviews with the executive management at research universities and at the Ministry of Education Malaysia to complement our quantitative survey. These decision-makers act as funding sources for commercialization and can provide richer evidence regarding important factors affecting commercialization. They can also provide insight on the issues that prevent the commercialization of research from becoming a reality.

Commercialization of Malaysia's university research findings is a critical agenda item in the National Higher Education Strategic Plan. However, in Malaysia, the rate of commercialization of academic research is still unsatisfactory. This study provides important insights regarding intentions behind commercialization by depicting how factors of academic research (i.e. academician's behaviour, innovativeness, Intellectual Properties management, University-Industry collaboration) influence commercialization.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and visualize alternative ways – how and by whom – that academic research can come into commercial use.

This study in the Swedish context investigates one entrepreneurial university, Chalmers University of Technology. In total, 18 interviews were conducted about researchers’ views on commercialization and on how research comes into commercial use.

Five propositions are advocated in relation to researchers’ role as enablers of others’ commercialization. The concept of “need for utilization” is introduced as the critical explanation for researchers’ readiness to transfer knowledge mainly via alumni to established companies.

This study suggests that both universities and policy should acknowledge alternative ways of commercialization of academic research instead of putting all efforts on trying to transform unwilling academic researchers into entrepreneurs. One alternative is to foster ongoing contacts between researchers and alumni, who make commercial use of academic research in established firms.

This study furthers the knowledge about researchers’ individual motivation for commercialization, as driven by a “need for utilization.” By showing how researchers enable others commercialization, this study broadens the prevailing focus on researchers’ formation of university spin-offs as the essential output from entrepreneurial universities. The results also contribute to understanding the role of alumni in knowledge transfer to existing industry.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between institutional change and commercialization of university research in China, the largest developing country during 1985‐2007 period.

The findings are based on a comparative case study of two key Chinese universities. Both unstructured and semi‐interviews are utilized for the research.

There is still a gap between goals of institutional change and performances of commercializing university research, albeit improvements have also been observed over last two decades.

Only two universities are selected to approach the complex commercialization process, more cases are needed for further research.

Experience generated from this comparative study might be helpful for other developing countries to explore the appropriate paths to commercialize their research results.

Three modes of commercialization proposed in the paper might help for cross‐country comparison research.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to study the incubator policy to support entrepreneurial development. In particular, the study reviews the incubation programs and strategies of technology transfer and commercialization as well as the innovation policies to support innovation commercialization in Thailand, based on the Triple Helix model.

This study employs the use of case study methodology to understand in-depth the operations of major university business incubators (UBIs) and technology business incubators in enhancing the process of technology commercialization. The study examines case studies of leading UBIs (Mahidol University, Chulalongkorn University and King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi) and science and technology incubators of the National Science and Technology Agency (NSTDA) and the National Innovation Agency (NIA). The operations and incubating policies are analyzed through the lens of Triple Helix model. The interviews were carried out using the semi-structured questionnaire to understand the views of trilateral parties (the government, university and industry) related to the concept of Triple Helix model. The interviews were carried out with major stakeholders including policy makers, policy analysts, government officials, managers running incubators, incubates, university professors, research managers. Interview data were supported by an examination of secondary data so as to provide a cross check on internal validity.

The results have shown that the incubation program is one of the major policy mechanisms to support innovation and suggested that UBIs should act as an intermediary between the spheres of university and industry to provide interactive linkages and promote effective utilization of university research. The empirical study provides insightful implications on the move toward the entrepreneurial university and the dynamics of the Triple Helix system in stimulating innovation development and diffusion.

By focussing on the major UBIs and technology business incubators in one of the Asian Tigers – Thailand, the study offers the model of university technology commercialization which could be applied to other developing economies. The study provides useful lessons and insights on the process of technology transfer and commercialization through the university incubation mechanism (university technology commercialization).

The commercialization of innovation, which is key to entrepreneurial success, is a combination of several entrepreneurial activities. Building on research from fields of management, strategy, entrepreneurship, economics, and marketing, the paper summarized the extant literature to develop a framework of commercialization and an agenda for future research. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Extensive review of literature, which was comprised of 194 articles across 62 journals in the fields of management, strategy, entrepreneurship, economics, and marketing.

The literature was categorized into six broad themes of entrepreneurial activities: sources of innovations, types of innovation, market entry (capabilities and feasibility), protection, development, and deployment. Most of the research papers that were reviewed were concentrated on single theme.

Given the identification of six key themes of entrepreneurial activity leading to the commercialization of innovations, research questions were posed as a means to move the research forward by integrating the themes.

This is the first paper in its kind to integrate 194 papers from 62 journals to provide a comprehensive framework of commercialization of innovations.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a commercialization framework that outlines phases and functional areas for technical and business practices in getting innovative products to market. The development of this framework was motivated by a history of failures of entrepreneurial business ventures in the commercialization of construction products.

This paper presents Phase 1 of commercialization research efforts, which includes a definition of innovation and commercialization for the residential construction industry; a review of literature related to generic commercialization models; and construction of a new commercialization framework for innovative construction products. This paper also introduces Phase 2 of this research, which includes qualitative and quantitative knowledge capture from construction industry experts; and the development of a domain‐specific commercialization model for the residential industry based on these inputs to reflect the unique challenges of construction products.

This paper presents a generic commercialization framework as a basis for interpreting various data from product interviews and case study literature. These data were used to further specify the framework. This paper presents an example of the many construction products reviewed in this research and its possible impact on the framework.

The generic commercialization model presented here could benefit innovators of construction products. The research indicates the importance of key steps in the commercialization of these kinds of products.

Since, no model captured the specific issues of commercializing residential construction products, this paper introduces a basis for one. In creating a generic commercialization framework, this paper facilitates entrepreneurial product commercialization for the construction industry.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a commercialization model based on gaining economic benefits through the transfer of technological capabilities in the oil and gas industry. Since commercialization models are mostly based on the implement of technology to produce and sell new products, this study focuses on developing a specific independent technology commercialization model.

The method of this research is qualitative based on the grounded theory. For this purpose, general variables with content analysis were extracted by reviewing documents (Literature review) and then for identifying special components, interviewing experts in the Iranian oil and gas industry. Participations were selected using snowball sampling for semistructured interviews.

The findings of this research were extracted based on grounded theory with data analysis in MAXQDA software. In this research, first, 210 open codes were identified based on qualitative content analysis of relevant documents and results of interviews with experts. Then the classification of open codes was done, and 46 subcategories (variables) were determined in the commercialization model. Finally, 46 subcategories were classified into 10 categories as axial codes in grounded theory as components of the commercialization model.

The results of this research have led to the creation of new practical and theoretical implications. In this research, a new perspective of commercialization with the aim of transferring technology and obtaining its economic benefits for oil and gas industry companies was discussed. Also, based on the practical implications explained in this research, policymakers can use the suggested model to effectively implement independent technology commercialization to acquire economic benefits.

This study is purely original and the outcome of the research conducted by the authors. The research findings are the outcome of in-depth study on technology commercialization in the Iranian oil and gas industry.