Targeting Academic Engagement in Open Innovation: Tools, Effects and Challenges for University Management

Journal of the Knowledge Economy

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 522-550

  Jonsson, Lars ^a   Baraldi, Enrico ^a   Larsson, Lars Eric ^a   Forsberg, Petter ^a   Severinsson, Kristofer ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Academic engagement; AIMday; Collaboration; Knowledge transfer; Mode 3; Professional innovation support officers (PISOs); Quadruple helix; Targeted open innovation; Technology transfer; University industry interaction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84942333386     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18687873     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13132-015-0254-7     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.
2. Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54, 42–58.
3. Ankrah, S. N., Burges, T. F., Grimshaw, P. & Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: what single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33, 50–65.
4. AUTM (2012). U.S. licensing activity survey, FY2011.
5. Balconi, M., Brusoni, S., & Orsenigo, L. (2010). In defence of the linear model: an essay. Research Policy, 39, 1–13.
6. Baraldi, E., & Launberg, A. (2013). The commercialization of science as an embedding process: the case of PET radiotracers at Uppsala University. Atlanta: Paper presented at the 29th IMP Conference.
7. Baraldi, E., Lindhal, M., & Severinsson, K. (2011a). Entrepreneurial universities seeking new ways to commercialize science: the case of Uppsala University’s AIMDay™. Stockholm: Paper presented at the Nordic Academy of Management 22-24 August.
8. Baraldi, E., Gregori, G. L., & Perna, A. (2011b). Network evolution and the embedding of complex technical solutions: the case of the Leaf House network. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 838–852.
9. Baraldi, E., Forsberg, P., & Severinsson, K. (2013). Crafting University-Industry Interactions: a typology and empirical illustrations from Uppsala University, Sweden. Amsterdam: Proceedings of the 2nd University-Industry Interaction Conference.
10. Baraldi, E., Ingemansson, M., & Launberg, A. (2014). Controlling the commercialization of science across organizational borders. Four cases from two major Swedish universities, Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 382–391.
11. Barry, T. E. (1987). The development of the hierarchy of effects: an historical perspective. Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 10(2), 251–295.
12. Bercovitz, J., & Feldmann, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175–188.
13. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. (2006). Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. New York: Praeger Publishers.
14. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4).
15. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. (2010). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and, Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69.
16. Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The quadruple/quituple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in europe and beyond. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 5, 212–239.
17. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press (March).
18. Clark, B. R. (2003). Sustaining change in universities: continuities in case studies and concepts. Tertiary Education and Management, 9, 99–116.
19. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 183–216.
20. Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., & Walsh, J. (1998). Industry and the academy: uneasy partners in the cause of technology advance. In R. G. Noll (Ed.), Challenges to Research Universities (pp. 171–199). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
21. Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation. Research Policy, 39, 699–709.
22. Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34, 321–342.
23. Eklund, M. (2007). Adoption of the Innovation System Concept in Sweden, doctoral thesis, The Department of Economic History, Uppsala University.
24. Etzkowitz, H. (2001). The Second academic revolution and the rise of entrepreneurial science. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, (Summer), 18-29.
25. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.
26. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the universityofthefuture: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–330.
27. Fishburn, C. S. (2014). Easy Access IP: ahead of the game or easy way out? SciBX7(11), doi:10.1038/scibx.2014.303
28. Gertner, D., Roberts, J., & Charles, D. (2011). University-industry collaboration: a CoPs approach to KTPs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 625–647.
29. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research. In Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
30. Håkansson, H. (Ed.). (1982). International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods: Interactive Approach. Chichester: Wiley.
31. Håkansson, H. (1989). Corporate Technological Behaviour, Cooperation and Networks. London: Routledge.
32. Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1989). No business is an island: the network concept of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 5(3), 187–200.
33. Håkansson, H., &Snehota, I. (Eds.)(1995). Developing Relationships in Business Networks. London:Routledge.
34. Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (Eds.). (2007). Knowledge and Innovation in Business and Industry. The importance of using others. London: Routledge.
35. Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Snehota, I., & Waluszewski, A. (2009). Business in Networks. Chichester: Wiley.
36. Hertzfeld, H. R., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). Intellectual property protection mechanisms in research partnerships. Research Policy, 35, 825–838.
37. Jacobsson, S., & Perez Vico, E. (2010). Towards a systemic framework for capturing and explaining the effects of academic R&D. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(7), 765–787.
38. Jones-Evans, D., Klofsten, M., Andersson, E., & Pandya, D. (1999). Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: the role of the Industrial Liaison Office. R&D Management, 29, 47–56.
39. Jonsson, L., Baraldi, E., Larsson, L.-E., Forsberg, P., & Severinsson, K. (2014a). Building professional university structures to support knowledge exchange for mutual benefits. Barcelona: Proceedings of the 3d University-Industry Interaction Conference.
40. Jonsson, L., Baraldi, E., & Larsson, L.-E. (2014b). A broadened innovation support for mutual benefits. Setif: Paper presented at the 4thCOSINUS Conference.
41. Lai, W.-H. (2011). Willingness to engage in technology transfer in industry–university collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 64, 1218–1223.
42. Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2000). Interimistic relational exchange: Conceptualization and propositional development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 212–226.
43. Levin, M., & Greenwood, D. (2001). Pragmatic action research and the struggle to transform universities into learning communities. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 103–113). London: Sage.
44. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications.
45. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.
46. Litan, R. E., Mitchell, L., & Reedy, E. J. (2007). The university as innovator: bumps in the road. Issues in Science and Technology, Summer, 2007, 11.
47. Lundvall, B.-A. (Ed.). (1992). National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
48. Mattsson, H. (2011). Hur ser Uppsala universitets forskare på nyttiggörande av forskningsresultat? Report in Swedish available at UU Innovation, Uppsala University. SwecoEurofutures.
49. Mattsson, H. (2013). Samverkan och nyttiggörande av forskning. Report in Swedish available at UU Innovation, Uppsala University. SwecoEurofutures.
50. Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32(1), 118–127.
51. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
52. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). Increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26, 317–330. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00013-9.
53. Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: uncovering the grey zone. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 617–636.
54. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). ‘Mode 2’ revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.
55. Pavitt, K. (2004). Changing patterns of usefulness of university research. opportunities and dangers. In K. Grandin, N. Wormbs, & S. Widmalm (Eds.), The Science-Industry Nexus. History, Policy, Implications (pp. 119–131). Sagamore Beach: Science History Publications.
56. Peças, P., & Henriques, E. (2006). Best practices of collaboration between university and industrial SMEs. Benchmarking: An, International Journal, 13(1/2), 54–67.
57. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.
58. Philbin, S. P. (2010). Developing and managing university-industry research collaborations through a process methodology/industrial sector approach. Journal of Research Administration, 41(3), 51–68.
59. Plewa, C., & Quester, P. (2007). Key drivers of university-industry relationships: the role of organisational compatibility and personal experience. Journal of Services Marketing, 21(5), 370–382.
60. Plewa, C., Quester, P., & Baaken, T. (2005). Relationship marketing and university-industry linkages: a conceptual framework. Marketing Theory, 5(4), 433–456.
61. Powell, W. W., Owen-Smith, J., & Colyvas, J. A. (2007). Innovation and emulation: lessons from American universities in selling private rights to public knowledge. Minerva, 45, 121–142.
62. Resende, D. N., Gibson, D., & Jerrett, J. (2013). BTP—best transfer practices. A tool for qualitative analysis of tech-transfer offices: A cross cultural analysis. Technovation, 33, 2–12.
63. Rhodes, G., & Sporn, B. (2002). New models of management and shifting modes and cost of production: Europe and the United States. Tertiary Education and Management, 8, 3–28.
64. Russel, C. P. (1921). How to write a sales-making letter. Printers’ Ink(June 2).
65. Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509–532.
66. 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.
67. Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2001). Managing Innovation, Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
68. Trune, D. R., & Goslin, L. N. (1998). University technology transfer programs: a profit/loss analysis. Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 57, 197–204.
69. vonHippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
70. West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R and D Management, 36(3), 319.
71. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37, 1205–1223.
72. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
73. Yusuf, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses. Research Policy, 37, 1167–1174.