2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.wpi.2018.05.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A real option based model for the valuation of patent protected technological innovation projects

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0
4

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
2
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…In the first phase of the analysis, we obtained the results shown in Table 2. Articulo Table 2 Determinants of value and limitations of the classical methods of patent valuation that use the quantitative approach Source: Prepared by the authors from (Drivas & Panagopoulos, 2016;Grimaldi et al, 2017;Hernández-García, Güemes-Castorena, & Ponce-Jaramillo, 2018;Ishii, 2016;Kim et al, 2015;Kopczewska & Kopyt, 2014;Lagrost et al, 2010;Lawryshyn, Collan, Luukka, & Fedrizzi, 2017;Pärs & Sander, 2015;Saaranto, 2016;Wirtz, 2012) The results of this analysis agree with what authors such as Kjellberg & Mallard, (2013) mention about the need for more multidimensional, dynamic and understandable methods and metrics to capture their characteristics.…”
Section: Analysis Of Resultssupporting
confidence: 68%
“…In the first phase of the analysis, we obtained the results shown in Table 2. Articulo Table 2 Determinants of value and limitations of the classical methods of patent valuation that use the quantitative approach Source: Prepared by the authors from (Drivas & Panagopoulos, 2016;Grimaldi et al, 2017;Hernández-García, Güemes-Castorena, & Ponce-Jaramillo, 2018;Ishii, 2016;Kim et al, 2015;Kopczewska & Kopyt, 2014;Lagrost et al, 2010;Lawryshyn, Collan, Luukka, & Fedrizzi, 2017;Pärs & Sander, 2015;Saaranto, 2016;Wirtz, 2012) The results of this analysis agree with what authors such as Kjellberg & Mallard, (2013) mention about the need for more multidimensional, dynamic and understandable methods and metrics to capture their characteristics.…”
Section: Analysis Of Resultssupporting
confidence: 68%
“…Although DCF is the most commonly used valuation method, it does have some limitations. The model is composed of static components, which can hinder valuation when the expected cash flow in the period is uncertain (SANTOS; SANTIAGO, 2008;SOUZA, 2016;GARCIA;FELDHAUS, 2018;CASTORENA;JARAMILLO, 2018).…”
Section: Trl Criterionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Técnicas tradicionais de avaliação de investimentos, como Valor Presente Líquido (VPL) e árvore de decisão, são limitadas quando os custos esperados e fluxos de caixa são incertos. RO tem ajudado acadêmicos e gerentes a melhor avaliarem a probabilidade de sucesso financeiro de projetos recheados de incertezas [13]. Outra ferramenta tradicional de avaliação de investimentos, como fluxo de caixa descontado, é adequado quando os eventos de fluxos de caixa futuros são determinísticos, porém é limitado quando há muita incerteza sobre o negócio, pois falham em fornecer uma avaliação sólida sobre um ambiente incerto e quando existe flexibilidade nas decisões gerenciais, neste cenário RO é adequado [14].…”
Section: Ferramentas E Técnicas Utilizadasunclassified
“… 2017: 03 artigos [15,18,19], sendo todos da base Scopus.  2018: 06 artigos, sendo 03 da base de dados Scopus [13][14][15]…”
Section: Distribuição Das Publicações Por Ano E Categoriaunclassified
See 1 more Smart Citation