How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 114, Issue , 2017, Pages 86-102

  Villani, Elisa ^a   Rasmussen, Einar ^a   Grimaldi, Rosa ^a  

^a FREE UNIVERSITY OF BOZEN BOLZANO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Collaborative research centres; Proximity dimensions; Technology transfer; Technology transfer offices; University incubators; University industry collaboration

Indexed keywords

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH; INDUSTRY COLLABORATION; PROXIMITY DIMENSIONS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICES; UNIVERSITY INCUBATORS;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

HIGHER EDUCATION; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

ITALY;

EID: 85002689319     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Aguiléra, A., Lethiais, V., Rallet, A., Spatial and non-spatial proximities in inter-firm relations: an empirical analysis. Ind. Innov. 19:3 (2012), 187–202.
2. Alexander, A.T., Martin, D.P., Intermediaries for open innovation: a competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 80:1 (2013), 38–49.
3. Algieri, B., Aquino, A., Succurro, M., Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: the case of Italy. J. Technol. Transf. 38:4 (2013), 382–400.
4. Ambos, T.C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., D'Este, P., When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. J. Manag. Stud. 45:8 (2008), 1424–1447.
5. Autant, B.C., Billand, P., Frachisse, D., Massard, N., Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Pap. Reg. Sci. 86:3 (2007), 495–519.
6. Balland, P.A., Proximity and the evolution of collaboration networks: evidence from research and development projects within the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) industry. Reg. Stud. 46:6 (2012), 741–756.
7. Balland, P.A., Boschma, R., Frenken, K., Proximity and innovation: from statics to dynamics. Reg. Stud., 2014, 1–14.
8. Bax, A., Corrieri, S., Daniele, C., Guarnieri, L., Parente, R., Piccaluga, A., Ramaciotti, L., Tiezzi, R., Unire i puntini per completare il disegno dell'innovazione. XI Rapporto Netval sulla valorizzazione della ricerca nelle Università italiane e negli enti pubblici di ricerca in Italia, 2014 ( http://www.netval.it/servizi/survey/).
9. Bianchi, M., Piccaluga, A., La sfida del trasferimento tecnologico: le Università italiane si raccontano. Le Università italiane si raccontano, 2012, Springer.
10. Bjerregaard, T., Industry and academia in convergence: micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration. Technovation 30:2 (2010), 100–108.
11. Boardman, C., Gray, D., The new science and engineering management: cooperative research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations. J. Technol. Transf. 35:5 (2010), 445–459.
12. Boschma, R., Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg. Stud. 39:1 (2005), 61–74.
13. Broekel, T., Boschma, R., Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the proximity paradox. J. Econ. Geogr. 12:2 (2012), 409–433.
14. Broström, A., Working with distant researchers—distance and content in university–industry interaction. Res. Policy 39:10 (2010), 1311–1320.
15. Bruneel, J., D'Este, P., Salter, A., Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Res. Policy 39:7 (2010), 858–868.
16. Capaldo, A., Petruzzelli, A.M., Partner geographic and organizational proximity and the innovative performance of knowledge-creating alliances. Eur. Manag. Rev. 11:1 (2014), 63–84.
17. Carlsson, B., Fridh, A.C., Technology transfer in United States universities—a survey and statistical analysis. J. Evol. Econ. 12:1-2 (2002), 199–232.
18. Cassi, L., Plunket, A., Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox. Ann. Reg. Sci., 2014, 1–28.
19. Colombo, M.G., Piva, E., Firms' genetic characteristics and competence-enlarging strategies: a comparison between academic and non-academic high-tech start-ups. Res. Policy 41:1 (2012), 79–92.
20. Corley, K.G., Gioia, D.A., Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Adm. Sci. Q. 49:2 (2004), 173–208.
21. Dasgupta, P., David, P.A., Toward a new economics of science. Res. Policy 23:5 (1994), 487–521.
22. D'Este, P., Guy, F., Iammarino, S., Shaping the formation of university–industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter?. J. Econ. Geogr. 13:4 (2013), 537–558.
23. Dornbusch, F., Neuhäusler, P., Composition of inventor teams and technological progress — the role of collaboration between academia and industry. Res. Policy 44:7 (2015), 1360–1375.
24. Eisenhardt, K.M., Building theories from case-study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14:4 (1989), 532–550.
25. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Res. Policy 29:2 (2000), 109–123.
26. Franzoni, C., Sauermann, H., Crowd science: the organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Res. Policy 43:1 (2014), 1–20.
27. Geldes, C., Felzensztein, C., Turkina, E., Durand, A., How does proximity affect interfirm marketing cooperation? A study of an agribusiness cluster. J. Bus. Res. 68:2 (2015), 263–272.
28. Gilly, J.P., Torre, A., Proximity relations. Elements for An Analytical Framework Industrial networks and proximity, 2000, 1–16.
29. Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L., Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ. Res. Methods 16:1 (2013), 15–31.
30. Grimaldi, R., Grandi, A., Business incubators and new venture creation: an assessment of incubating models. Technovation 25:2 (2005), 111–121.
31. Hayter, C., Link, A., On the economic impact of university proof of concept centers. J. Technol. Transf. 40:1 (2015), 178–183.
32. Heringa, P.W., Horlings, E., Zouwen, M.V.D., Besselaar, P.V.D., Vierssen, W.V., How do dimensions of proximity relate to the outcomes of collaboration? A survey of knowledge-intensive networks in the Dutch water sector. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 23:7 (2014), 689–716.
33. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., Tijssen, R.J., Research collaboration at a distance: changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Res. Policy 39:5 (2010), 662–673.
34. Hong, W., Su, Y.-S., The effect of institutional proximity in non-local university–industry collaborations: An analysis based on Chinese patent data. Res. Policy 42:2 (2013), 454–464.
35. Howells, J., Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res. Policy 35:5 (2006), 715–728.
36. Huber, F., On the role and interrelationship of spatial, social and cognitive proximity: personal knowledge relationships of R&D workers in the Cambridge information technology cluster. Reg. Stud. 46:9 (2011), 1169–1182.
37. Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Wright, M., Piva, E., Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: the case of a hybrid model. Small Bus. Econ. 43:2 (2014), 289–307.
38. Jacobsson, S., Karltorp, K., Mechanisms blocking the dynamics of the European offshore wind energy innovation system — challenges for policy intervention. Energ Policy 63 (2013), 1182–1195.
39. Jensen, R., Thursby, M., Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. Am. Econ. Rev. 91:1 (2001), 240–259.
40. Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76:6 (2009), 849–860.
41. Knoben, J., Oerlemans, L.A.G., Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: a literature review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 8:2 (2006), 71–89.
42. Knockaert, M., Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., The impact of technology intermediaries on firm cognitive capacity additionality. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 81:0 (2014), 376–387.
43. Kodama, T., The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university–industry linkages—an empirical study of TAMA in Japan. Res. Policy 37:8 (2008), 1224–1240.
44. Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., Salter, A., Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Reg. Stud. 45:4 (2011), 507–523.
45. Lhuillery, S., Pfister, E., R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: empirical evidence from French CIS data. Res. Policy 38:1 (2009), 45–57.
46. Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., Naturalistic Inquiry. 1985, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
47. Maietta, O.W., Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: a perspective from a low-tech industry. Res. Policy 44:7 (2015), 1341–1359.
48. Markman, G.D., Phan, P.H., Balkin, D.B., Gianiodis, P.T., Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. J. Bus. Ventur. 20:2 (2005), 241–263.
49. Marrocu, E., Paci, R., Usai, S., Proximity, networking and knowledge production in Europe: what lessons for innovation policy?. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 80:8 (2013), 1484–1498.
50. Massard, N., Mehier, C., Proximity and innovation through an “accessibility to knowledge” lens. Reg. Stud. 43:1 (2009), 77–88.
51. Mattes, J., Dimensions of proximity and knowledge bases: innovation between spatial and non-spatial factors. Reg. Stud. 46:8 (2012), 1085–1099.
52. Minguillo, D., Thelwall, M., Research excellence and university–industry collaboration in UK science parks. Res. Eval. 24:2 (2015), 181–196.
53. Minguillo, D., Tijssen, R., Thelwall, M., Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK. Scientometrics 102:1 (2015), 701–725.
54. Murray, F., The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of distinction at the boundary of overlapping institutions. Am. J. Sociol. 116:2 (2010), 341–388.
55. Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., van den Oord, A., Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Res. Policy 36:7 (2007), 1016–1034.
56. Nosella, A., Grimaldi, R., University-level mechanisms supporting the creation of new companies: an analysis of Italian academic spin-offs. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 21:6 (2009), 679–698.
57. O'Kane, C., Mangematin, V., Geoghegan, W., Fitzgerald, C., University technology transfer offices: the search for identity to build legitimacy. Res. Policy 44:2 (2015), 421–437.
58. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D'Este, P.,.. Sobrero, M., Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Res. Policy 42:2 (2013), 423–442.
59. Perkmann, M., Schildt, H., Open data partnerships between firms and universities: the role of boundary organizations. Res. Policy 44:5 (2015), 1133–1143.
60. Phillips, R.G., Technology business incubators: how effective as technology transfer mechanisms?. Technol. Soc. 24:3 (2002), 299–316.
61. Ponds, R., Van Oort, F., Frenken, K., The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Pap. Reg. Sci. 86:3 (2007), 423–443.
62. Rosenkopf, L., Almeida, P., Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Manag. Sci. 49:6 (2003), 751–766.
63. Rothaermel, F.T., Thursby, M., Incubator firm failure or graduation? The role of university linkages. Res. Policy 34:7 (2005), 1076–1090.
64. Sauermann, H., Stephan, P., Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organ. Sci. 24:3 (2012), 889–909.
65. Siegel, D.S., Phan, P., Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: implications for entrepreneurship education. Adv. Study of Entrep. Innov. Econ. Growth 16:1 (2005), 1–38.
66. Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A., Link, A.N., Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Res. Policy 32:1 (2003), 27–48.
67. Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A., Atwater, L.E., Link, A.N., Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 21:1 (2004), 115–142.
68. Slavtchev, V., Proximity and the transfer of academic knowledge: evidence from the spatial pattern of industry collaborations of East German professors. Reg. Stud. 47:5 (2013), 686–702.
69. Steinmo, M., Rasmussen, E., How firms collaborate with public research organizations: the evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects. J. Bus. Res. 69:3 (2016), 1250–1259.
70. Strauss, A., Corbin, J., Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Technique. second ed, 1998, Sage, Newbury Park, London.
71. Tartari, V., Salter, A., D'Este, P., Crossing the Rubicon: exploring the factors that shape academics' perceptions of the barriers to working with industry. Camb. J. Econ. 36:3 (2012), 655–677.
72. Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W., Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. Am. J. Sociol. 105 (1999), 801–843.
73. Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W., Lounsbury, M., The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. 2012, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
74. Vohora, A., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Res. Policy 33:1 (2004), 147–175.
75. Wonglimpiyarat, J., The dynamic economic engine at Silicon Valley and US Government programmes in financing innovations. Technovation 26:9 (2006), 1081–1089.
76. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., Knockaert, M., Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Res. Policy 37:8 (2008), 1205–1223.
77. Wuyts, S., Colombo, M.G., Dutta, S., Nooteboom, B., Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 58:2 (2005), 277–302.
78. Yin, R.K., Applications of Case Study Research. fourth ed, 2003, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.