Delivering on societal impacts through open innovation: a framework for government laboratories

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 977-996

  Schillo, R Sandra ^a,b   Kinder, Jeffrey S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Government laboratories; Impact models; Open innovation; Public research organizations; Research management; Research policy

Indexed keywords

ISOMERS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

GOVERNMENT LABORATORIES; IMPACT MODEL; OPEN INNOVATION; PUBLIC RESEARCH; RESEARCH MANAGEMENT; RESEARCH POLICIES;

INNOVATION;

EID: 85008223884     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-016-9521-4     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Andes, S., Muro, M., & Stepp, M. (2014). Going local: Connecting the national labs to their regions for innovation and growth. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center for Clean Energy Innovation, and The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.
2. Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2006). Public science, private interests: Culture and commerce in Canada’s networks of centres of excellence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
3. Bach, L., & Llerena, P. (2007). Indicators of higher-education institutes and public-research organizations technology transfer activities: Insights from France. Science and Public Policy, 34(10), 709–721.
4. Bonaccorsi, A. (2008). Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. Minerva, 46(3), 285–315.
5. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 627–655.
6. Bozeman, B. (2002). Public value failure and market failure, lead article. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 145–161.
7. Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67.
8. Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2011). Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva, 49(1), 1–23.
9. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). ‘Mode 3’and’Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3–4), 201–234.
10. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
11. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Brighton: Harvard Business School Press.
12. Chesbrough, H. (2007a). Why companies should have open business models. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(2), 22–28.
13. Chesbrough, H. (2007b). Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), 12–17.
14. Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229–236.
15. Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.
16. Chompalov, I., Genuth, J., & Shrum, W. (2002). The organization of scientific collaborations. Research Policy, 31(5), 749–767.
17. Crow, M., & Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the US national innovation system. New York: Columbia University Press.
18. Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709.
19. Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: The case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management, 36(3), 333–346.
20. Doern, G. B., & Kinder, J. (2007). Strategic science in the public interest: Canada’s government laboratories and science-based agencies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
21. Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. (2009). What do business models do? Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 38(10), 1559–1570.
22. Dutrénit, G., De Fuentes, C., & Torres, A. (2010). Channels of interaction between public research organisations and industry and their benefits: Evidence from Mexico. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 513–526.
23. Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311–316.
24. 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.
25. Fernández-Esquinas, M., & Ramos-Vielba, I. (2011). Emerging forms of cross-sector collaboration in the Spanish innovation system. Science and Public Policy, 38(2), 135–146.
26. Gassmann, O. & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: Three core process archetypes. In Conference proceedings: R&D Management Conference, (pp. 1–18).
27. 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 Publications Limited.
28. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., & Scott, P. (2011). Revisiting Mode 2 at Noors Slott. Prometheus, 29(4), 361–372.
29. Grossman, J. H., Reid, P. P., & Morgan, R. P. (2001). Contributions of academic research to industrial performance in five industry sectors. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 143–152.
30. Guerrero, Maribel, et al. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities: Emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 551–563.
31. Hayter, C. S., & Rooksby, J. H. (2016). A legal perspective on university technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(2), 270–289.
32. Henkel, J. (2006). Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux. Research Policy, 35(7), 953–969.
33. Hickey, G. M., Forest, P., Sandall, J. L., Lalor, B. M., & Keenan, R. J. (2013). Managing the environmental science-policy nexus in government: Perspectives from public servants in Canada and Australia. Science and Public Policy, 40(4), 529–543.
34. Hughes, A. (2011). Open innovation, the Haldane principle and the new production of knowledge: Science policy and university–industry links in the UK after the financial crisis. Prometheus, 29(4), 411–442.
35. Hughes, M. E., Howieson, S. V., Walejko, G., Gupta, N., Jonas, S., Brenner, A. T., et al. (2011). Technology transfer and commercialization landscape of the federal laboratories. NS P-4728. Washington, DC: Institute for the Defense Analyses.
36. Huizingh, K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9.
37. Hurmelinna, P., Kyläheiko, K., & Jauhiainen, T. (2007). The Janus face of the appropriability regime in the protection of innovations: Theoretical re-appraisal and empirical analysis. Technovation, 27(3), 133–144.
38. Isabelle, D. A., & Heslop, L. A. (2011). Managing for success in international scientific collaborations: Views from Canadian government senior science managers. Science and Public Policy., 38(5), 349–364.
39. Kitagawa, F., & Lightowler, C. (2013). Knowledge exchange: A comparison of policies, strategies, and funding incentives in English and Scottish higher education. Research Evaluation, 22(1), 1–14.
40. Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1995). On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24(2), 185–205.
41. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.
42. Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2015). Public sector entrepreneurship: US technology and innovation policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. Lin, M.-W., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Researchers’ industry experience and productivity in university–industry research centers: A “scientific and technical human capital” explanation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 269–290.
44. Link, A. N., & Link, J. (2009). The Government as Entrepreneur. New York: Oxford University Press.
45. Martin, S., & Scott, J. T. (2000). The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy, 29(4), 437–447.
46. Miller, T. R., & Neff, M. W. (2013). De-facto science policy in the making: How scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva, 51(3), 295–315.
47. Mustar, P., & Larédo, P. (2002). Innovation and research policy in France (1980–2000) or the disappearance of the Colbertist state. Research Policy, 31(1), 55–72.
48. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). (2010). Science and technology strategy: Creating a sustainable Canadian resource advantage through science and technology. Ottawa: Government of Canada.
49. Nelson, R. R. (2006). Reflections of David Teece’s “Profiting from technological innovation…”. Research Policy, 35(8), 1107–1109.
50. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
51. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: Mode 2 revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194.
52. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2005). Re-thinking science: Mode 2 in societal context. In Elias Carayannis & David Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters (pp. 39–51). Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
53. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760.
54. Pavitt, K. (1991). What makes basic research economically useful? Research Policy, 20(2), 109–119.
55. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.
56. Rothwell, R. (1994). Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 7–31.
57. Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509–532.
58. Schillo, R. S. (2014). Commercialization and public good: Conflict, complement, or critical component? Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(7), 27–35.
59. Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on “Profiting from Innovation”. Research Policy, 35(8), 1131–1146.
60. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 172–194.
61. Valdivia, W. D. (2011). The stakes in Bayh-Dole: Public values beyond the pace of innovation. Minerva, 49(1), 25–46.
62. van Rooij, A. (2013). Gaps and Plugs: TNO, and the problems of getting knowledge out of laboratories. Minerva, 51(1), 25–48.
63. Von Hippel, E., & Von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209–223.
64. Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.