Uncovering transfer – a cross-national comparative analysis

Abstract

Purpose Successful knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) is necessary to ensure the competitiveness and growth of national innovation systems. In this regard, technology transfer offices (TTOs) are becoming indispensable in their capacity as intermediaries between science, policy, industry, and the public. The purpose of this paper is to examine the strategies and operations of particularly productive transfer offices in five different countries in order to account for the high levels of transfer activity. Design/methodology/approach To this end, the authors interviewed 34 senior KTT managers in these offices. The collected protocols were analysed in three phases. First, the authors extracted and organised the key characteristics of the transfer practices by applying rigorous method of open-end, qualitative content analysis. The authors then enhanced the thus gathered descriptive statistics and ultimately developed a transfer office typology by building on the concept of attribute space. Findings The analysis suggests two ideal types of transfer offices, distinguishable in terms of their intertwined characteristics such as their goals, practices, sources of income, and positions within their associated organisations. While the primarily state-funded common good type would seek benefits to the public, the self-financed entrepreneurial type would pursue commercial success. The former would therefore create opportunities for disseminating knowledge and strengthening the local innovation ecosystem, while the latter would scout for promising ideas and cultivate relationships with industry. Originality/value The goal was to uncover the individual characteristics of the offices under study, and the relationships between these characteristics, that can help explain these offices’ exceptional productivity. This study is the first to propose a TTO typology, which can support interorganisational and international transfer collaboration. The findings provide empirical evidence for the theoretical Quadruple Helix model of the innovation system and have implications for research and practice.

Co-Evolution of the University Technology Transfer: Towards a Sustainability-Oriented Industry: Evidence from Italy

“…An example of this action is the European Union's 10-year plan to make Europe "the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion" [27]. The fact that the expected results has not been reached so far [28,29] highlights that effective interactions among the aforementioned actors are difficult to achieve. Therefore, the interaction among the abovementioned innovation actors and its potential changes over time play a crucial role in shaping the content and direction of technological development, and have gained substantial interest in the literature since the impact of the Bayh Dole Act (1980) on the research mission of universities and the commercialisation of results.…”

Academic entrepreneurship: phase-specific constraints and needs

“…In this phase, most constraints on the way to forming a business relate to external triggers. Poor early sensitization and awareness loom large in the research phase as publications are considered the most important transfer channel (Sinell et al, 2018a). Interviewees perceive a conflict of interest between research commercialization in the form of academic spin-offs and ongoing research.…”

Entrepreneurial aspirations: economic development, inequalities and cultural values

“…In particular, the impact of the global recession in the decision to start a new venture is a topic that requires further attention, as economic growth has its origin in entrepreneurs who decide to risk their savings to create value and employment, through an innovation process (Martins and Terblanche, 2003). Moreover, innovation is strongly linked with firm performance (Phung Minh Thu et al, 2018), but it has been cited to originate within a national innovation system (Sinell et al, 2018), that allows to examine it in a local context (Haapasaari et al, 2018) and hence performing multi-countries comparisons (Arabiyat et al, 2019). To sum up, the rationale behind this study is to focus on entrepreneurial aspirations due to their effect on innovation at country level, being crucial both for the smart specialization of economic regions (McCann and Ortega-Argil es, 2014) and as a vehicle for innovation and technology transfer (Sinell et al, 2018;Haapasaari et al, 2018).…”