Who really acts as an entrepreneur in the science commercialisation process: the role of knowledge transfer intermediary organisations

Abstract

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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. Findings 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. Originality/value 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.

“Who you know affects what you know”: Knowledge transfer in the university–private partnership – a social capital perspective

“…He explains that intermediary action includes “helping to provide information about potential collaborators; brokering a transaction between two or more parties; acting as a mediator, or go-between, of bodies or organizations that are already collaborating; and helping find advice, funding and support for the innovation outcomes of such collaborations”. Several types or forms of innovation intermediaries have been discussed in the literature as IOs, including technology transfer offices, technology licensing organisations, university incubators, intellectual property headquarters, university-based venture development organisations and cooperative research centres (Szulczewska-Remi and Nowak-Mizgalska, 2021; Villani et al, 2017). Cluster initiatives can also act as IOs between different stakeholders in cluster settings and within the open innovation framework, as in the Triple Helix and Quadruple Helix models (Klofsten et al, 2015; Laur et al, 2012).…”

Academic entrepreneurship in theory and practice

“…In addition, other competences can be supplemented by knowledge transfer intermediary organizations, especially complementary resources needed for commercial exploitation of opportunity like laboratory equipment, office space, information technology infrastructure or access to financial resources. Szulczewska-Remi and Nowak-Mizgalska (2021), in the aforementioned work, based on Polish and Czech studies, showed that other entrepreneurial competences are provided by these intuitions, mainly evaluation of an invention's commercialisation potential, team building and business model development.…”

Advancing Mental Health Care with AI-Enabled Precision Psychiatry Tools: A Patent Review

“…After the patenting phase, technologies can be licensed and sold commercially (Harryson, 2008;Kamariah et al, 2011;Szulczewska-Remi & Nowak-Mizgalska, 2021). The existing evidence on the benefits of AI for precision psychiatry, however, does not take into account factors that are relevant for market adoption (e.g., Bzdok & Meyer-Lindenberg, 2018;Passos et al, 2022;Salazar de Pablo et al, 2021;Zanardi et al, 2021).…”