A method to assess and support exploitation projects of university researchers

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 986-1006

  Cartalos, Odysseas ^a   Rozakis, Stelios ^b,c   Tsiouki, Dominiki ^a  

^a LOGOTECH   (Greece)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CRETE   (Greece)

^c AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

Author keywords

Assessment criteria; Commercialization potential; Research exploitation; Technology transfer; University TTO

Indexed keywords

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP; ASSESSMENT CRITERIA; COMMERCIALIZATION POTENTIAL; ENTREPRENEURIAL PROJECT; EXPLOITATION POTENTIALS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICES; UNIVERSITY RESEARCHERS; UNIVERSITY TTO;

NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION;

EID: 84995483212     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-016-9519-y     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010). Knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, International Handbook Series on Entrepreneurship, Vol. 5. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1191-9_11
2. Audretsch, D. B. (2009). The entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 3, 245–254
3. Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 313–321
4. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175–188
5. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655
6. Bozeman, B., Rimes, H., & Youtie, J. (2015). The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy, 44, 34–49
7. Bradley, S., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics Working Paper Series, Working Paper 13–10. http://bae.uncg.edu/assets/research/econwp/2013/13-10.pdf
8. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
9. Conti, A., & Gaule, P. (2008). The CEMI survey of university Technology Transfer Offices in Europe. Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne. http://cemi.epfl.ch/page-30722-en.html
10. Debackere, K. (2012). The TTO, a university engine transforming science into innovation. League of European Research Universities (LERU), Advice Paper No. 10. http://www.leru.org/files/publications/TTO_paper_final.pdf
11. Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342
12. Drivas, K., Balafoutis, A. T., & Rozakis, S. (2016). Research funding and academic output: Evidence from the Agricultural University of Athens. Prometheus,. doi:10.1080/08109028.2016.1150575
13. EARTO. (2014). The TRL scale as a research and innovation policy tool. EARTO Recommendations. European Association of Research and Technology Organisations. http://www.earto.eu/fileadmin/content/03_Publications/The_TRL_Scale_as_a_R_I_Policy_Tool_-_EARTO_Recommendations_-_Final.pdf
14. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121
15. European Commission. (2014). European innovation scoreboard 2013—Comparative analysis of innovation performance. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
16. European Commission. (2015). Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016–2017, Annex G. European Commission Decision C 6776 of 13 October 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/wp/2016-2017/annexes/h2020-wp1617-annex-ga_en.pdf
17. Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. (2009). Smart specialisation—The concept. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief No. 9, pp. 25–29. http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/kfg_policy_briefs_no_5_9.pdf
18. Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 17–30
19. Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32, 333–350
20. Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74
21. Hallam, C. R. A., Leffel, A., Chinea, I. (2011). Early phase technology management valuation practices by university licensing offices in the United States: Empirical data from a survey of the top 100 organizations. In PICMET: Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology, 2011 proceedings of PICMET ‘11: Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET)
22. Hayter, C. (2013). Harnessing university entrepreneurship for economic growth: Factors of success among university spinoffs. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 18–28
23. Heinzl, J., Kor, A., Orange, G., & Kaufmann, H. (2008). Technology transfer model for Austrian higher education institutions. Paper presented at the European and mediterranean conference on information systems, May 25–26, 2008
24. Heslop, L. A., McGregor, E., & Griffith, M. (2001). Development of a technology readiness assessment measure: The cloverleaf model of technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 369–384
25. Jain, R. K., Martyniuk, A. O., Harris, M. M., Niermann, R. N., & Woldmann, K. (2003). Evaluating the commercial potential of emerging technologies. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 2, 32–50
26. 3). Brussels: European Commission Joint Research Centre. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/presenta/smart_specialisation/smart_ris3_2012.pdf
27. JRC. (2014). RIS3 implementation and policy mixes. S3 Policy Brief Series No. 07. Brussels: European Commission Joint Research Centre. http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/20182/114990/JRC91917_RIS3_implementation_and_policy_mixes_final.pdf/e56f2977-f217-475c-95c2-649c55d83b40
28. Mavrotas, G., Diakoulaki, D., & Caloghirou, Y. (2006). Project prioritization under policy restrictions. A combination of MCDA with 0–1 programming. European Journal of Operational Research, 171, 296–308
29. Mohannak, K., & Samtani, L. (2014). A criteria-based approach for evaluating innovation commercialisation. Paper presented at the DRUID Society Conference 2014, CBS, Copenhagen, June 16–18
30. O’Shea, R. P., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 653–666
31. OECD. (2011). Reviews of regional innovation: Regions and innovation policy. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Publication date: 04/05/2011. http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/oecdreviewsofregionalinnovationregionsandinnovationpolicy.htm
32. Oral, M., Kettani, O., & Lang, P. (1991). A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects. Management Science, 37, 871–885
33. Phan, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182
34. Rahal, A. D., & Rabelo, L. C. (2006). Assessment framework for the evaluation and prioritization of university inventions for licencing and commercialization. Engineering Management Journal, 18(4), 28–36
35. Rothaermel, F., Agung, S., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791
36. Sahini, E. (2014). Bibliometric analysis of Greek publications in international scientific journals. National Documentation Centre. Publication date: 15 December 2014. http://report04.metrics.ekt.gr/
37. Siegel, D. S. (2011). Academic entrepreneurship: Lessons learned for university administrators and policymakers. Presented at the Strategic Management of Places Conference, December 13, 2011
38. Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology Transfer Offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660
39. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59–70
40. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Industry/university licensing: Characteristics, concerns and issues from the perspective of the buyer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 207–213
41. Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2007). Patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. In P. Stephan & R. Ehrenberg (Eds.), Science and the university. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press
42. Trueman, S., Borrell-Damian, L., & Smith, J. H. (2014). The evolution of university-based knowledge transfer structures. The EUIMA Collaborative Research Project Papers. http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publications/Stephen_Trueman_Final.sflb.ashx
43. Vekinis, G. (2014). Technology transfer in practice: From invention to innovation. Athens: Presstime. eBook ISBN: 978-960-93-5996-2 and Paperback ISBN: 978-960-93-5855-2
44. Vinig, T., & Lips, D. (2015). Measuring the performance of university technology transfer using meta data approach: The case of Dutch universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 1034–1049
45. Young, T. A. (2007). Establishing a Technology Transfer Office. In A. Krattiger, R. T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford: MIHR