scholarly journals Responsible Research and Innovation in the Context of University Technology Transfer

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (328) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerzy Piotr Gwizdała ◽  
Karol Śledzik
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Responsible Innovation ◽  
Responsible Research And Innovation ◽  
University Technology Transfer ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Technology Transfer Offices ◽  
University Technology ◽  
Google Books ◽  
The University ◽  
Responsible Research

The term „Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)” has been increasingly used for over a decade. The RRI concept is not currently well defined. The theory of RRI is not developed enough and there are still conceptual divergences. This paper introduces the issue of Responsible Research and Innovation and addresses the following key questions: How do we define RRI? Where do we stand in terms of understanding the RRI dimensions presented in literature? What is the role of RRI in the university technology transfer activity? The study is based on literature search on the Scopus (www.scopus.com), EBSCO (www.ebsco.com), Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) and Google Books (books.google.com) databases to obtain articles published in peer reviewed journals, related to the concept of RRI and technology transfer. The search terms (for title and topic) were: responsible innovation, responsible research and innovation, RRI, technology transfer. Critical analysis of the state of knowledge allowed to propose a set of seven conceptual dimensions (inclusion, anticipation, responsiveness, reflexivity, sustainability, care and economic) of the Responsible Research and Innovation concept that may be implemented in technology transfer processes executed at universities. RRI concept is still under development. A discussion around the conceptual dimensions of RRI will be followed by the strategic challenges of universities. The study resulted in two conclusions. Firstly, the RRI concept may shift the focus of TTOs (Technology Transfer Offices) from outcomes (revenues, cash flow, rate of return, patents, license fee, etc.) to processes, which further leads to the second conclusion, that all seven presented conceptual dimensions should indicate particular types of processes in university TTO. Fulfillment of these two conclusions makes possible to implement RRI on University in a wider perspective, than just fulfill the requirements of administrative funders.

Priority Challenges of University Technology Transfer with Interpretative Structural Modeling and MICMAC Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (05) ◽  
pp. 2050038
Author(s):  
Renissa S. Quiñones ◽  
June Anne A. Caladcad ◽  
Hubert G. Quiñones ◽  
Charena J. Castro ◽  
Shirley Ann A. Caballes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Geographic Distance ◽  
Structural Modeling ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
University Technology Transfer ◽  
Joint Research ◽  
Micmac Analysis ◽  
University Technology ◽  
The University

Translating university technology via the university–industry route faces an array of challenges. Subsequently, understanding the interrelationships of these challenges hopes to provide a better outlook on the complex nature of the university technology transfer (UTT) process. Such an agenda remains a gap in the domain literature. To advance this oversight, this study intends to identify the UTT challenges and determine their complex contextual relationships. The interpretative structural modeling, together with the MICMAC analysis, was sequentially adopted to derive the overarching structure of the challenges of UTT. A case study in a public university in the Philippines was conducted to carry out these objectives. Findings show that time constraints, knowledge being too theoretical, high costs of managing joint research projects, complex organizational structure, institutional bureaucracy, geographic distance, and lack of national benchmark are driving challenges that influence other challenges in impeding UTT in the representative Philippine university. These findings provide policy insights to key decision-makers and stakeholders on the success of technology transfers.

Information-based imitation of university commercialization strategies: The role of technology transfer office autonomy, age, and membership into an association

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Pitsakis ◽  
Claudio Giachetti
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
University Technology Transfer ◽  
Internal Source ◽  
Technology Transfer Office ◽  
Technology Transfer Offices ◽  
University Technology ◽  
Source Of Information ◽  
Successful Technology

We investigate whether university technology transfer offices, that is, divisions responsible for the commercialization of academic research, imitate their industry peers when designing their commercialization strategy. We borrow from information-based theories of imitation and the literature on academic entrepreneurship to argue that given a technology transfer office’s autonomy to strategize independently from its parent university, information from within and outside the technology transfer office affects its propensity to imitate the commercialization strategy of the “most successful peers,” that is, those with the largest live spinoff portfolio and greatest revenues from spinoffs in the industry. We contend that a technology transfer office’s experience, that is, a function of its age, represents a key internal source of information for the technology transfer office when deciding whether to imitate or not; we also consider the technology transfer office’s embeddedness in a network where the most successful peer is also a member as a key external source of information. From data on 86 British university technology transfer offices and their commercialization strategies between 1993 and 2007 that were drawn from both secondary sources and in-depth interviews with technology transfer office managers, we find that there is a negative relationship between technology transfer offices’ autonomy and their level of imitation of the most successful technology transfer office’s strategy, and that this relationship is moderated by the technology transfer offices’ age and by their membership into an association where the most successful technology transfer office is also a member.

Licensing, Partnering, Strategic Alliances and University Relationships

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wesley Daniel Blakeslee
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Strategic Alliances ◽  
Biotechnology Industry ◽  
University Research ◽  
University Technology Transfer ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Technology Transfer Offices ◽  
The University ◽  
University Industry

Abstract The biopharmaceutical industry has been undergoing change for a number of years and that change is accelerating.  Larger pharmaceutical companies are acquiring smaller ones, companies are merging, laboratories are being closed, and the number of scientists performing research in the pharmaceutical industry is declining.  Overall, commercial industry, including the biotechnology industry, is becoming more interested in the benefits of collaboration with research institutions.Universities are also changing their view of relationships with industry.  Shrinking federal budgets are causing universities to look at other sources of revenue, including collaborations with industry.  Federal and state governments are also looking closely at the benefits of sponsoring university research, and in particular are seeking to accelerate commercialization of university discoveries not only to obtain the benefit of invested research dollars, but also for economic development and job growth.  Universities, and in particular university technology transfer offices, must understand these changes and adapt to them. This paper discusses the university/industry relationships, and the particular issues important to universities which shape that interface. 

scholarly journals University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 421-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Conor O’Kane ◽  
Vincent Mangematin ◽  
Will Geoghegan ◽  
Ciara Fitzgerald
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
University Technology Transfer ◽  
Technology Transfer Offices ◽  
University Technology

The university technology transfer revolution in Saudi Arabia

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 585-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Alshumaimri ◽  
Taylor Aldridge ◽  
David B. Audretsch
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Technology Transfer ◽  
University Technology Transfer ◽  
University Technology ◽  
The University

scholarly journals Open Innovation with Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping for Modeling the Barriers of University Technology Transfer: A Philippine Scenario

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renissa Quiñones ◽  
June Anne Caladcad ◽  
Hubert Quiñones ◽  
Shirley Ann Caballes ◽  
Dharyll Prince Abellana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Cognitive Mapping ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
University Technology Transfer ◽  
State University ◽  
Joint Research ◽  
Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping ◽  
University Technology ◽  
The University

The University technology transfer (UTT) process is hindered by various barriers to achieving a successful translation of innovative technologies from universities to industries and other partners. Identifying these various barriers and understanding their interrelationships would provide a better understanding of the complex nature of the UTT process, which may be considered as inputs to crucial decision-making initiatives. This paper addresses this gap by holistically determining UTT barriers and their intertwined relationships. Using the Delphi method and fuzzy cognitive mapping, a case study in a state university in the Philippines was conducted to carry out this objective. The Delphi process extracts 24 relevant barriers of UTT, out of 46 barriers obtained from a comprehensive review of the extant literature. The results show that misalignment between research and commercialization objectives is the barrier that was influenced most by the other barriers. In contrast, high costs of managing joint research projects in terms of time and money and institutional bureaucracy have the highest out-degree measures or are the barriers that influence other barriers the most. These findings provide guidelines to various stakeholders and decision-makers in understanding the existence of barriers in the formulation of strategies and initiatives for a successful UTT process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document