Search results

The process of innovation in developing countries is different from that of developed countries, with mature technologies often being adopted with limited success. Universities are increasingly being viewed by policymakers as engines of innovation through the technology transfer office (TTO). However, with the adoption of various new intellectual property right legislation, university TTOs in developing countries have had an inefficient approach to technology transfer. Framed in the above premises, this study aims to develop a Maturity Model to measure, through non-monetary indicators, the efficiency of TTOs.

The Maturity Model is inspired by the Berkley (PM)2 Model which allows an organization to determine strengths and weaknesses and to focus on weak practices to achieve higher maturity. Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process is adopted to determine the priorities and weights of the non-monetary indicators because they are ambiguous.

The Maturity Model to measure the efficiency of TTO cover the following efficiency areas: intellectual property strategy and policy; organization design and structure; human resource; technology; industry links; and networking. The model provides a theoretical continuum along which the process of maturity can be developed incrementally in TTO from one level to the next, moving from awareness, defined, managed, integrated and sustained stage.

The Maturity Model needs to be tested and applied in TTOs in developing countries.

The Maturity Model provides a means to sustain the decision-making process more effectively, especially in those countries considered as an inefficient innovator.

The findings inform the design of a customizable solution to barriers to the success of technology transfer and highlight weaknesses within each institution or TTOs efficiency.

The paper aims to understand the process of transfer of agricultural technology, which comprises incubation of the technology business, valuation, evaluation, licensing and commercialization, to examine various dimensions of the process of technology transfer and the effectiveness of transfer object use criteria, to explore ways of sustaining incubation and commercialization through an autonomous unit responsible for technology transfer, to peruse the role of agribusiness incubators in creating an effective agri-entrepreneurship eco-system and to study the factors that promote or inhibit the sustainability of business incubators in an academic or research institution setting.

An innovative technology for production of liquid bio-fertilizers was developed and nurtured to market levels by Anand Agricultural University (AAU), a State Agricultural University in Gujarat. The technology for production of liquid bio-fertilizers, developed during 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 was licensed to some of the state public and private sector undertakings under the World Bank-financed National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP) implemented through Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). For commercializing the technologies from the University, a Business Planning and Development (BPD) Unit was set up at AAU along the lines of a technology transfer office, under the aegis of NAIP during later part of 2009. The NAIP funding from World Bank for BPD Units ceased in June 2014 with closure of the project. With funding no more available, Rajababu V. Vyas, a research scientist at the Microbiology and Bio-fertilizer Department of the University and Head of the BPD Unit, had serious concerns about the BPD unit’s sustainability, as well as sustaining the process of technology transfer from the University.

Anand Agricultural University (AAU), a state-run university in Gujarat, developed and incubated a technology to produce liquid biofertilizer, licensed the technology and marketed its product through a few state-run and private fertilizer firms. The technology was developed between 2009/2010 and 2013/2014 as part of the National Agricultural Innovation Project of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research with funds from the World Bank. A unit to incubate agri-businesses, referred to as Business Planning and Development Unit (BPDU), was set up in late 2009 to expedite the process of technology transfer from AAU to agribusiness firms. Rajababu V. Vyas, a research scientist at the Microbiology and Bio-fertilizer Department of the university, was concerned about the unit’s sustainability, because funding from the World Bank had ceased from June 2014, and wondered how to sustain the transfer of technology from the laboratory to the field in the light of the data available to him.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

Entrepreneurship

It is widely accepted that enterprises obtaining academic discoveries through R&D collaboration improve their innovation performance. However, it is not necessarily true in emerging economies, such as China and post-socialist countries in Europe. The purpose of this paper is to fill the gap by investigating how R&D collaboration between industry and academia (i.e. universities and research institutes) affects the industrial innovation performance; and whether and how intermediaries moderate their relationships.

This paper constructs the research model according to the knowledge production function, and the pooled ordinary least square regression is used to verify our hypotheses.

Evidence from a sample of Chinese industrial enterprises in thirty provinces spanning from 2009 to 2014 suggests that R&D collaboration with research institutes (CWR) is positively related to innovation output, while R&D collaboration with universities (CWU) exerts negative effect on innovation output measured by sales revenue of new product (NPSR). The significant moderating role of technology transfer institutions is confirmed in the negative relationship between CWU and NPSR.

This paper empirically examines the moderating role of intermediary organisations in academia–industry cooperation and industrial innovation, and has practical implications for the government to formulate policies to improve the quality and effectiveness of cooperation between academic and industrial sectors. These results vary in inland and coastal areas, which suggest the policy makers to formulate policies according to local conditions not only in China but also in other countries, like European countries.

This study investigates the role of “soft” factors of total quality management – in terms of empowerment and engagement of employees – in facilitating or hindering organizational performance of the university technology transfer offices.

The authors developed an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), multiple regression model to test if empowerment and engagement affect organizational performance of the university technology transfer offices.

The authors found that “soft” factors of total quality management – in terms of empowerment and engagement – facilitate the improvement of organizational performance in university technology transfer offices.

The authors’ analysis shows that soft total quality management practices create the conditions for improving organizational performance. This study provides practical implications by showing that, in the evaluation of the technology transfer office, not only the “hard” variables (e.g. number of employees and employee experience) but also the “soft” one (e.g. empowerment and engagement) matter. Therefore, university technology transfer managers or university technology transfer delegates should take actions to promote not only empowering employees but also create a climate conducive to employees' engagement in the university technology transfer offices.

With regards to the differences in organizational performances of university technology transfer offices, several studies have focused their attention on technology transfer professionals in technology transfer offices, but only a few of them have examined the “soft side” of total quality management. Thus, this study examines the organizational goals of technology transfer offices through “soft” factors of total quality management in terms of empowerment and engagement employees.

We used the preceding definition to introduce our original article on resources in technology transfer that appeared in the fall 1994 issue of this publication. The emphasis is on technology transfer as a process, a series of interconnected events along a spectrum, leading from the discovery of a technology with potential value conceived in one institution up through its ultimate use by another institution. Naturally the process is frequently not a smooth one. Obstacles arise at many points along the way. These include such problems as lack of funding (by either or both parties to the process), lack of a champion to promote the technology (again in either or both parties to the process), cultural barriers within organizations, including the “not invented here” syndrome, impatience on the part of management to see quick results when it may not be possible to produce them, and lack of good information upon which to base decisions about the discovery, acquisition, adaptation, and use of technology. Clearly the technology transfer process is often expensive, protracted, and difficult.

This chapter opens with a brief historical account of the vision and development of the land grant college and university system. This account begins to frame the land grant model as an important American social innovation. Next, the legacy of the land grant system as a social innovation is extended through a review of the role the Cooperative Extension System in enacting the New Deal during the Great Depression era. The topic culminates in the chapter with a critical exploration of the revenue-driven university technology transfer system that is currently in place and presents an alternative model that is anchored in the principles and practices of social entrepreneurship. Land grant colleges and universities are positioned as key agents in advancing such an alternative model, which is consistent with the historical role these institutions have played in advancing the economic and social interests of the nation.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of the variables that play a relevant role in the management of university-industry linkage and technology transfer in the context of a public university in Mexico.

This study is quantitative, and the method is based on an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), to identify the group of variables that relates to university-industry technology transfer, by applying a questionnaire to full time professors and researchers.

The EFA allowed for the analysis of the relationships within a group of variables, and found that the structure of the principal components presents a close connection to the literature review. The first, second and third factors, named institutional support in the linkage and technology transfer activities, research results management, and university linkage activities planning, respectively, explain the original problem in a greater percentage. Additionally, it is suggested to include other variables, to increase the explained variance percentage of the components.

The study of university-industry linkage and technology transfer allows for improvement in the institutional management of these activities, their entrepreneurship, and consequently, their use by companies, government and society.

This study focuses on analyzing a group of variables in a questionnaire, in order to identify those that are related to the university-industry technology transfer management, in the context of a public university in Mexico.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how university-based entrepreneurship programs, incorporating real-life venture creation into educational design and delivery, can bridge the gap between entrepreneurship education and technology transfer within the university environment.

Based on a literature review and snowball sampling over a two-year period, 18 entrepreneurship education programs were identified as applying a venture creation approach. Ten of these programs were selected for case study, including direct interviews and participatory observation during a two-day workshop. Empirical findings were iteratively related to theory within entrepreneurship education and technology transfer.

The paper identifies the bridging capabilities of venture creation programs (VCP) across five core themes, illustrating the potential benefits of closer collaboration between entrepreneurship education and technology transfer in a university environment.

A definition for “VCP” is tested empirically. These programs are shown to be sophisticated laboratory environments, allowing for clinical research towards the understanding of entrepreneurship and technology transfer processes.

Findings identify practical benefits of combining entrepreneurship education and technology transfer activities, such as increased value creation through not only new firms, but also an entrepreneurially equipped graduate population. VCPs allow for “spin-through” of innovative ideas in the university environment, while simultaneously contributing to entrepreneurial learning.

This paper presents findings from the first multiple case study into entrepreneurship education specifically designed to develop real-life venture as part of the core curriculum. Findings provide basis for investigating the value of integrating entrepreneurship education and technology transfer at the university.

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.

SESSION I: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER