Enablers and barriers to university and high technology SME partnerships

Small Enterprise Research

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 2-18

  Collier, Alan ^a   Gray, Brendan J ^a   Ahn, Mark J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

commercialisation; small and medium sized enterprises; technology transfer; technology transfer office; Universities

Indexed keywords

EID: 85028969388     PISSN: 13215906     EISSN: 11750979     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5172/ser.18.1.2     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Ahn, M., Gray, B. & Collier, A. (2009). An institution-based view of innovation and technology transfer in New Zealand. In the Proceedings of the SEEANZ Conference, Wellington, Massey University, 2 September 2009, on disk.
2. Ahn, M. J., Zwikael, O. & Bednarek, R. (2010). Technological invention to product innovation: A project management approach, International Journal of Project Management, 28(6), 559–568.
3. Agrawal, A. & Henderson R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT, Management Science, 48(1): 44–60.
4. AUTM (2007). The AssociTechnology Managers, The Better World Report Part 2, Technology Transfer Works: 100 Innovations from academic research to real-world applications, Deerfield, IL: AUTM.
5. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
6. BCA (2006a). New concepts in innovation: The keys to a growing Australia, Sydney: Business Council of Australia, March.
7. BCA (2006b). New pathways to prosperity: A national innovation framework for Australia, Sydney: Business Council of Australia, November.
8. Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Cebon, P. (2006). Australian Innovation – Learning from 10 Cases, Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, Working Paper No. 12.06, September.
10. Chrisman, J.J., Hynes, T. & Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 267–281.
11. Collier, A. (2007). Australian framework for the commercialisation of university scientific research, Prometheus, 25(1), 51–68.
12. Collier, A. & Zhao, F. (2008). On the disconnection between university technology transfer offices and small and medium enterprises, in the Proceedings of the 17th International Conference for the International Association of Management of Technology, April 6–10, Dubai, UAE.
13. Connell, D. (2006). ‘Secrets’ of the world’s largest seed fund: How the United States Government uses its small business innovation research (SBIR) programme and procurement budgets to support small technology firms, Cambridge: Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
14. Cunneen, D.J. & Meredith, G.G. (2007). Entrepreneurial founding activities that create gazelles. Small Enterprise Research, 15(1), 39–59.
15. Debackere, K. & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links, Research Policy, 34, 321–342.
16. Decter, M., Bennett, D. & Leseure, M. (2007). University to business technology transfer–UK and USA comparisons. Technovation, 27, 145–155.
17. DEST (2007). Department of Education, Science and Training, National survey of research commercialisation Years 2003 and 2004, Canberra: DEST, August.
18. DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48, 147–160.
19. DITR (2005). Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, SMEs: Taking innovation to the global market – a study of a small number of selected participants in the R&D start and biotechnology innovation fund programs, Canberra: DITR, February.
20. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research, The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
21. Eisenhardt, K. & Graebner, M. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
22. Ferris, W. (2001). Australia chooses: Venture capital and a future Australia, Australian Journal of Management, 26, 45–64.
23. GAO (1990). US General Accounting Office, Case Study Evaluations, Transfer Paper 10.1.9, November, Washington DC.
24. Hall, P.A. & Taylor, R.C.R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.
25. Harman, G. & Stone, C. (2006). Australian university technology transfer managers: Backgrounds, work roles, specialist skills and perceptions, Journal of Higher Education and Policy Management, 28(3), 213–230.
26. Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., Raghian, M. & Smith D. (1997). Mapping the university technology transfer process, Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 423–434.
27. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.
28. KCA (2006). Big Book of Ideas 2006, Crawley, WA: Knowledge Commercialisation Australia.
29. Kessler, E.H., Allocca, M.A. & Rahman, N. (2007). External knowledge accession and innovation speed in the small and medium sized enterprise (SME). Small Enterprise Research, 15(1), 1–21.
30. Laursen.K. & Salter, A. (2003). Searching low and high: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?, Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics, DRUID Working Paper No 03–16, December, Aalborg, DK.
31. Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 387–401.
32. Mansfield, E. (1986). Patents and innovation: An empirical study, Management Science, 32(2), 173–181.
33. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation, Research Policy, 20, 1–12.
34. Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings, Research Policy, 26, 773–776.
35. Markides, C. & Geroski, P. (2003). Colonizers and consolidators: The two cultures of corporate strategy, Strategy+Business, 32, 1–10.
36. Merton, R.K. (1973). The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37. Milton-Smith, J. (2001). The role of SMEs in commercialising university research & development: The Asia-Pacific experience, Small Business Economics, 16 (2), 141–148.
38. Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and university–industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35, 1499–1508.
39. OECD (2001). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Introduction: The New Spin on Spin-Offs, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/57/0,3343,en_2649_34173_2046201_1_1_1_1,00.html
40. Owen-Smith, J. & Powell, W.W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32, 1695–1711.
41. Peças, P. & Henriques, E. (2006). Best practices of collaboration between university and industrial SMEs, Benchmarking: An International Journal, 13 (1/2), 54–67.
42. PMSEIC (2005). Working group: Growing technology-based SMEs – Final report, Canberra: Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, March.
43. Rhoten, D. & Powell, W.W. (2007). The frontiers of intellectual property: Expanded protection versus new models of open science. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 345–373.
44. Rider, C., Hong, L., O’Connell, A., Stewart, M. & Herring, M. (2006). Taxation problems in the commercialisation of intellectual propert y, Melbourne: The University of Melbourne (also cited as IPRIA Report No. 01/06).
45. Rothaermel, F.T. & Hess, A.M. (2007). Building dynamic capabilities: Innovation driven by individual-, firm-, and network-level effects. Organization Science, 18(6), 898–921.
46. Rothaermel, F.T. & Thursby, M. (2005). University–incubator firm knowledge flows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34(3), 305–320.
47. Sackett, P. & Larson, J. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organization psychology. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, pp. 419–489. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
48. Scandura, T. & Williams, E. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1248–1264.
49. Su, Y.-S., Tsang, & E.W. K. & Peng, M.W. (2009). How do internal capabilities and external partnerships affect innovativeness? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(2), 309–331.
50. Teece, D., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
51. Thursby, J. & Thursby, M. (2003). University licensing and the Bayh-Dole act. Science, 30(1), 1052–1061.
52. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
53. Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
54. Yin, R. (2003). Applications of case study research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.