Intellectual property management in publicly funded r&d program and projects: Optimizing principal–agent relationship through transdisciplinary approach

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Volumn 12, Issue 23, 2020, Pages 1-17

  Miyashita, Shuto ^a,b   Katoh, Shogo ^a,b   Anzai, Tomohiro ^b   Sengoku, Shintaro ^a,b  

^a TOKYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

^b KAWASAKI INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION   (Japan)

Author keywords

Adverse selection; Intellectual property; Knowledge logistics information asymmetry; Mixed methods; Moral hazard; Startup

Indexed keywords

CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; INNOVATION; INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEM; LEARNING; LOGISTICS; NETWORK ANALYSIS; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; STATE ROLE;

EID: 85096874368     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20711050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su12239923     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Grigss, D.; Stafford-Smith, M.; Gaffney, O.; Rockström, J.; Öhman, M.C.; Shyamsundar, P.; Steffen, W.; Glaser, G.; Kanie, N.; Noble, I. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 2013, 495, 305–307. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Voegtlin, C.; Scherer, A.G. Responsible Innovation and the Innovation of Responsibility: Governing Sustainable Development in a Globalized World. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 143, 227–243. [CrossRef]
3. Bogers, M.; Chesbrough, H.; Moedas, C. Open innovation: Research, practices, and policies. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2018, 60, 5–16. [CrossRef]
4. Beck, S.; Bergenholtz, C.; Bogers, M.; Brasseur, T.M.; Conradsen, M.L.; Di Marco, D.; Distel, A.P.; Dobusch, L.; Dörler, D.; Effert, A.; et al. The Open Innovation in Science research field: A collaborative conceptualisation approach. Ind. Innov. 2020, 1–50. [CrossRef]
5. Etzkowitz, H. The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. Int. J. Technol. Glob. 2004, 1, 64–77. [CrossRef]
6. Wuchty, S.; Jones, B.F.; Uzzi, B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 2007, 316, 1036–1039. [CrossRef]
7. Anzai, T.; Kusama, R.; Kodama, H.; Sengoku, S. Holistic observation and monitoring of the impact of interdisciplinary academic research projects: An empirical assessment in Japan. Technovation 2012, 32, 345–357. [CrossRef]
8. Lauto, G.; Valentin, F. How Large-Scale Research Facilities Connect to Global Research. Rev. Policy Res. 2013, 30, 381–408. [CrossRef]
9. Milojevic, S. Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 3984–3989. [CrossRef]
10. Lauto, G.; Sengoku, S. Perceived incentives to transdisciplinarity in a Japanese university research center. Futures 2015, 65, 136–149. [CrossRef]
11. Katoh, S.; Lauto, G.; Anzai, T.; Sengoku, S. Identification of factors to promote interdisciplinary research: A trial at COINS. In Proceedings of the 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Honolulu, HI, USA, 19–23 August 2018; pp. 1–11.
12. Sauermann, H.; Vohland, K.; Antoniou, V.; Balázs, B.; Göbel, C.; Karatzas, K.; Mooney, P.; Perelló, J.; Ponti, M.; Samson, R.; et al. Citizen science and sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 2020, 49, 103978. [CrossRef]
13. D’Este, P.; Patel, P. University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Res. Policy 2007, 36, 1295–1313. [CrossRef]
14. Perkmann, M.; Tartari, V.; McKelvey, M.; Autio, E.; Broström, A.; D’Este, P.; Fini, R.; Geuna, A.; Grimaldi, R.; Hughes, A.; et al. Academic engagement and commercialization: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 423–442. [CrossRef]
15. Gans, J.S.; Murray, F.E.; Stern, S. Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication. Res. Policy 2017, 46, 820–835. [CrossRef]
16. Siegel, D.S.; Veugelers, R.; Wright, M. Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2007, 23, 640–660. [CrossRef]
17. Bannerman, S. The World Intellectual Property Organization and the sustainable development agenda. Futures 2020, 122, 102586. [CrossRef]
18. Alos-Simo, L.; Verdu-Jover, A.J.; Gomez-Gras, J.M. Knowledge transfer in sustainable contexts: A comparative analysis of periods of financial recession and expansion. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4916. [CrossRef]
19. Bozeman, B. Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Res. Policy 2000, 29, 627–655. [CrossRef]
20. Battistella, C.; De Toni, A.F.; Pillon, R. Inter-organisational technology/knowledge transfer: A framework from critical literature review. J. Technol. Transf. 2016, 41, 1195–1234. [CrossRef]
21. Wijnhoven, F. Knowledge logistics in business contexts: Analyzing and diagnosing knowledge sharing by logistics concepts. Knowl. Process. Manag. 1998, 5, 143–157. [CrossRef]
22. Wijnhoven, F. Operational knowledge management: Identification of knowledge objects, operation methods, and goals and means for the support function. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2003, 54, 194–203. [CrossRef]
23. Jick, T.D. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Adm. Sci. Q. 1979, 24, 602–611. [CrossRef]
24. Eisenhardt, K.M. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [CrossRef]
25. United Nations. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. In Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015; RES/70/1; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
26. United Nations. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017; A/RES/71/313; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
27. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
28. Zscheischler, J.; Rogga, S.; Busse, M. The adoption and implementation of transdisciplinary research in the field of land-use science—A comparative case study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1926. [CrossRef]
29. Kajikawa, Y.; Tacoa, F.; Yamaguchi, K. Sustainability science: The changing landscape of sustainability research. Sustain. Sci. 2014, 9, 431–438. [CrossRef]
30. Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2003.
31. Chesbrough, H. Open Services Innovation: Business Rethinking your Business to Grow and Compete in a New Era; Jossey Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011.
32. Yun, J.H.J.; Jeong, E.S.; Park, J.S. Network analysis of open innovation. Sustainability 2016, 8, 729. [CrossRef]
33. Huggins, R.; Prokop, D.; Thompson, P. Universities and open innovation: The determinants of network centrality. J. Technol. Transf. 2020, 45, 718–757. [CrossRef]
34. Repko, A.F. Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory, 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012.
35. König, B.; Diehl, K.; Tscherning, K.; Helming, K. A framework for structuring interdisciplinary research management. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 261–272. [CrossRef]
36. Klein, J.T. Unity of knowledge and transdisciplinarity: Contexts of definition, theory and the new discourse of problem solving. In Unity of Knowledge (in Transdisciplinary Research for Sustainability). Encyclopedia of life support systems. 2003. Available online: www.eolss.net (accessed on 11 November 2020).
37. Stock, P.; Burton, R.J. Defining terms for integrated (multi-inter-trans-disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1090–1113. [CrossRef]
38. Adler, C.; Hirsch Hadorn, G.; Breu, T.; Wiesmann, U.; Pohl, C. Conceptualizing the transfer of knowledge across cases in transdisciplinary research. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 179–190. [CrossRef]
39. Brandt, P.; Ernst, A.; Gralla, F.; Luederitz, C.; Lang, D.J.; Newig, J.; Reinert, F.; Abson, D.J.; Von Wehrden, H. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92, 1–15. [CrossRef]
40. Klein, J.T. Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research. A Literature Review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 35, 116–123. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Eisenhardt, K.M. Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 57–74. [CrossRef]
42. Jensen, M.C.; Meckling, W.H. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. J. Financ. Econ. 1976, 3, 305–360. [CrossRef]
43. Holmstrom, B. Moral Hazard and Observability. Bell J. Econ. 1979, 10, 74. [CrossRef]
44. Bergh, D.D.; Ketchen, D.J.; Orlandi, I.; Heugens, P.P.; Boyd, B.K. Information Asymmetry in Management Research: Past Accomplishments and Future Opportunities. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 122–158. [CrossRef]
45. Akerlof, G.A. The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 1970, 84, 488–500. [CrossRef]
46. Bergmann, R.; Friedl, G. Controlling innovative projects with moral hazard and asymmetric information. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 1504–1514. [CrossRef]
47. Sappington, D.E.M. Incentives in Principal-Agent Relationships. J. Econ. Perspect. 1991, 5, 45–66. [CrossRef]
48. Ollier, S.; Thomas, L. Ex post participation constraint in a principal-agent model with adverse selection and moral hazard. J. Econ. Theory 2013, 148, 2383–2403. [CrossRef]
49. Riley, J.G. Silver signals: Twenty-five years of screening and signaling. J. Econ. Lit. 2001, 39, 432–478. [CrossRef]
50. Delfgaauw, J.; Dur, R. Signaling and screening of workers’ motivation. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2007, 62, 605–624. [CrossRef]
51. Connelly, B.L.; Certo, S.T.; Ireland, R.D.; Reutzel, C.R. Signaling theory: A review and assessment. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 39–67. [CrossRef]
52. Arnott, B.R.; Stiglitz, J.E. Moral Hazard and Nonmarket Institutions: Dysfunctional Crowding Out of Peer Monitoring. Am. Econ. Rev. 1991, 81, 179–190.
53. Levin, J. American Economic Association Relational Incentive Contracts. Am. Econ. Rev. 2003, 93, 835–857. [CrossRef]
54. Lewis, G.; Bajari, P. Moral hazard, incentive contracts, and risk: Evidence from procurement. Rev. Econ. Stud. 2014, 81, 1201–1228. [CrossRef]
55. Funding Program for World-Leading Innovative R&D on Science and Technology (FIRST Program). Available online: https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-first/index.html. (accessed on 18 October 2020).
56. NanoBio FITST—Funding Program for World-Leading Innovative R&D on Science and Technology—Development of Innovative Diagnostic and Therapeutic Systems Based on nanobiotechnology. Available online: http://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/nanobiof/en/index.html (accessed on 18 October 2020).
57. Interim evaluation of Funding Program for World-Leading Innovative R&D on Science and Technology. Available online: https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/sentan/sentan_chukan.html (accessed on 18 October 2020).
58. Ex post evaluation of Funding Program for World-Leading Innovative R&D on Science and Technology. Available online: https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/sentan/sentan_jigo.html (accessed on 18 October 2020).
59. Follow-up evaluation of Funding Program for World-Leading Innovative R&D on Science and Technology. Available online: https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/sentan/sentan_tuiseki.html (accessed on 18 October 2020).
60. Harrison, R.L.; Reilly, T.M.; Creswell, J.W. Methodological Rigor in Mixed Methods: An Application in Management Studies. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2020, 14, 473–495. [CrossRef]
61. Klassen, A.C.; Creswell, J.; Plano Clark, V.L.; Smith, K.C.; Meissner, H.I. Best practices in mixed methods for quality of life research. Qual. Life Res. 2012, 21, 377–380. [CrossRef]
62. Takano, Y.; Mejia, C.; Kajikawa, Y. Unconnected component inclusion technique for patent network analysis: Case study of Internet of Things-related technologies. J. Informetr. 2016, 10, 967–980. [CrossRef]
63. Japan Platform for Patent Information (J-PlatPat). Available online: https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp (accessed on 18 October 2020).
64. Espacenet. Available online: https://worldwide.espacenet.com (accessed on 18 October 2020).
65. Narin, F. Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics 1994, 30, 147–155. [CrossRef]
66. Ernst, H. Patent information for strategic technology management. World Pat. Inf. 2003, 25, 233–242. [CrossRef]
67. Kim, K.; Jung, S.; Hwang, J. Technology convergence capability and firm innovation in the manufacturing sector: An approach based on patent network analysis. R D Manag. 2019, 49, 595–606. [CrossRef]
68. Érdi, P.; Makovi, K.; Somogyvári, Z.; Strandburg, K.; Tobochnik, J.; Volf, P.; Zalányi, L. Prediction of emerging technologies based on analysis of the US patent citation network. Scientometrics 2013, 95, 225–242. [CrossRef]
69. Albert, M.B.; Avery, D.; Narin, F.; McAllister, P. Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Res. Policy 1991, 20, 251–259. [CrossRef]
70. Rodríguez-Salvador, M.; Rio-Belver, R.M.; Garechana-Anacabe, G. Scientometric and patentometric analyses to determine the knowledge landscape in innovative technologies: The case of 3D bioprinting. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180375. [CrossRef]
71. Borgatti, S.P.; Everett, M.G. Models of core /periphery structures. Soc. Netw. 1999, 21, 375–395. [CrossRef]
72. Fonti, F.; Maoret, M. The direct and indirect effects of core and peripheral social capital on organizational performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 1765–1786. [CrossRef]
73. Baldwin, C.Y. Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2008, 17, 155–195. [CrossRef]
74. Godin, B. The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2006, 31, 639–667. [CrossRef]
75. Mincer, J. On-the-Job Training: Costs, Returns, and Some Implications. J. Political Econ. 1962, 57270, 50–79. [CrossRef]
76. Nakajima, Y.; Miyashita, S.; Sengoku, S. Innovative Advanced Technology through University-Industry Collaboration: Role of Venture Capitals, Entrepreneurs and Process Management in Japan. Asian J. Innov. Policy 2018, 7, 564–580.