Boundary spanning between industry and university: The role of Technology Transfer Centres

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 943-966

  Comacchio, Anna ^a   Bonesso, Sara ^a   Pizzi, Claudio ^b  

^a CA' FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE   (Italy)

^b CA' FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Boundary spanning; Human capital; Joint R D projects; SMEs; Technology Transfer Centres; University industry linkage

Indexed keywords

KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; PERSONNEL; SEMANTICS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

BOUNDARY SPANNING; COMPLEX RELATIONSHIPS; DOMAIN-SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE; EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION; HUMAN CAPITALS; ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS; SMES; UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY LINKAGES;

SERVICE INDUSTRY;

EID: 84869140334     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-011-9227-6     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2011). The role of information asymmetry in the market for university-industry research collaboration. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 84-100.
2. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.
3. Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. The Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217-230.
4. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
5. Balconi, M., & Laboranti, M. (2006). University-industry interactions in applied research: The case of microelectronics. Research Policy, 35, 1616-1630.
6. Balconi, M., & Passannanti, A. (2006). I parchi scientifici e tecnologici nel Nord Italia. Milano: Franco Angeli.
7. Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego, A. (2011). The impact of research and technology organizations on firm competitiveness. Measurement and determinants. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 61-83.
8. Bessant, J., & Rush, H. (1995). Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, 24, 97-114.
9. Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432-445.
10. Boschma, R. A., & Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2007). Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: The case of a footwear district in the South of Italy. Industry and Innovation, 14(2), 177-199.
11. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2005). The geography of knowledge spillovers: Conceptual issues and measurement problems. In S. Breschi & F. Malerba (Eds.), Clusters, networks and innovation (pp. 343-378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (2005). Clusters, networks and innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Brusoni, S., Criscuolo, P., & Geuna, A. (2005). The knowledge bases of the world's largest pharmaceutical groups: What do patent citations to non-patent literature reveal? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(5), 395-415.
14. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes, the social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15. Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage & closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Burt, R. S., Jannotta, J. E., & Mahoney, J. T. (1998). Personality correlates of structural holes. Social Networks, 20, 63-87.
17. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Organization science transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555-568.
18. Carson, S. J., Madhok, A., & Wu, T. (2006). Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: The effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1058-1077.
19. Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229-236.
20. Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., De Massis, A., & Frattini, F. (2008). The knowledge-bridging role of Technical and Scientific Services in knowledge-intensive industries. International Journal of Technology Management, 41(3/4), 249-272.
22. Compagno, C., & Pittino, D. (2006). Ricerca scientifica e nuove imprese. Torino: Isedi.
23. Corley, P., Boardman, C., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies. Research Policy, 35, 975-993.
24. Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34, 321-342.
25. Decter, M., Bennett, D., & Leseure, M. (2007). University to business technology transfer-UK and USA comparisons. Technovation, 27, 145-155.
26. Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Sylos Labini, M. (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called 'European Paradox'. Research Policy, 35, 1450-1464.
27. Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311-316.
28. European Commission, Enterprise Directorate General. (2004). Technology transfer institutions in Europe: An overview, Brussels.
29. Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165-180.
30. Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research Policy, 35, 309-323.
31. Gulati, R., & Singh, H. (1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 781-814.
32. Hagardon, A., & Sutton, R. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716-749.
33. Hollanders, H., Tarantola, S., & Loschky, A. (2009). Regional innovation scoreboard (RIS) 2009. Pro Inno Europe Innova Metrics.
34. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715-728.
35. Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop-inside Procter & Gamble's new model for innovation. Harvard Business Review, March, 58-66.
36. IPI-Istituto per la Promozione Industriale. (2005). Indagine sui centri per l'innovazione e il trasferimento tecnologico in Italia, a cura del Dipartimento Centri e Reti Italia, Direzione Trasferimento di Conoscenza e Innovazione. Roma: Novembre.
37. ISTAT. (2010). Struttura e dimensione delle unità locali delle imprese Anno 2008. Roma.
38. Kirkels, Y., & Duysters, G. (2010). Brokerage in SME networks. Research Policy, 39(3), 375-385.
39. Kodama, T. (2008). The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university-industry linkages-An empirical study of TAMA in Japan. Research Policy, 37, 1224-1240.
40. Lakhani, K. R. (2008). InnoCentive. com (A). Harvard Business School Case, No. 608-170.
41. Laranja, M. (2009). The development of technology infrastructure in Portugal and the need to pull innovation using proactive intermediation policies. Technovation, 29, 23-34.
42. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching low and high: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33, 1201-1215.
43. Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The triple helix: An evolutionary model of innovations. Research Policy, 29, 243-255.
44. Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2007). Developing reputation to overcome the imperfections in the markets for knowledge. Research Policy, 36, 37-55.
45. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34, 253-257.
46. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms- academy-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31, 859-876.
47. Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). Multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behaviour. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1423-1439.
48. Marsili, O., & Verspagen, B. (2002). Technology and the dynamics of industrial structures: An empirical mapping of Dutch manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 791-815.
49. McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. (2005). Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1033-1055.
50. McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging the ties: A source of firms heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1133-1156.
51. Morrison, A. (2008). Gatekeepers of knowledge within industrial districts: Who they are, how they interact. Regional Studies, 42(6), 817-835.
52. Muller, E., & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: The role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 30, 1501-1516.
53. Muscio, A. (2007). The impact of absorptive capacity on SMEs' collaboration. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(8), 653-668.
54. Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 181-202.
55. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
56. Nerkar, A., & Paruchuri, S. (2005). Evolution of R&D capabilities: The role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science, 51(5), 771-785.
57. Nest. (2000). Rapport Nest 2000 (Network for Science and Technology). Venezia: Veneto Innovazione.
58. Nooteboom, B., van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, G., & van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36, 1016-1034.
59. OECD. (2003). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2003. OECD: Paris.
60. Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14(4), 422-439.
61. Reisman, A. (2005). Transfer of technologies: A cross-disciplinary taxonomy. Omega, 33, 189-202.
62. Robertson, P. L., & Patel, P. R. (2007). New wine in old bottles: Technological diffusion in developed economies. Research Policy, 36(5), 708-721.
63. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University-incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34, 305-320.
64. Roveda, C., & Vecchiato, R. (2008). Foresight and innovation in the context of industrial clusters: The case of some Italian districts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75, 817-833.
65. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111-133.
66. Sonali, K. S., & Corley, K. G. (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1821-1835.
67. Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2010). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 30(2), 130-141.
68. Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37, 1079-1095.
69. Tushman, M., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289-305.
70. Yusuf, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses. Research Policy, 37, 1167-1174.
71. Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. (2005). Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 809-825.