Science commercialisation within university-industry Nexus

• Autorzy: Szulczewska-Remi Aleksandra

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2024.193.36

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: The current challenges science faces from the global market relate mainly to transferring knowledge, technical and scientific ideas to the economy, creating products, and developing processes and technologies promoting Social, Economic and Sustainable Development. Therefore, discussions regarding stimulating research commercialisation, along with university-industry cooperation as part of universities' third mission, persist. In light of these considerations, this research aimed to conceptualise and formulate a definition of research commercialisation in universities, while the second objective involved empirically verifying the incentives and barriers to R&D commercialisation within the university-industry nexus in Central and Eastern European country, Poland. Design/methodology/approach: The commercialisation of scientific research is a complex process that involves multiple stages. It requires the implementation of tasks that are repeated at various points throughout the process. Hence, this research aims to answer the question: what is the approach model to universities' research commercialisation from enterprises' perspective? The study conducted systematic literature reviews and employed the SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis) methodology. The second research question was phrased as: what are the incentives and barriers to R&D commercialisation in the university-industry nexus? Empirical research was employed to address this question through computer-assisted telephone interviews with 44 Polish companies. This qualitative study applied the methodologies which included data categorisation, contextualisation, preliminary within-case analysis, and cross-case analysis. Findings: The research enhances our comprehension of universities' commercialisation process. The literature review enabled the formulation of a definition for science commercialisation and the graphical presentation of universities' commercialisation model. The study also confirmed that collaborating with highly qualified specialists, developing one's own staff during cooperation, exchanging knowledge, and achieving cost savings, e.g. on research and development expenses and acquiring new technologies, were the most significant benefits for respondents. In contrast, the most significant barriers were the lack of receptivity to industry needs, slow actions and decision-making during commercialisation, obsolete laboratories and equipment, as well as bureaucracy. Research limitations: The research was not without constraints. Initially, a few respondents faced time constraints, and subsequently, the absence of visual and non-verbal cues that aid in situating the interviewee as observed in face-to-face interviews may have been lost. Practical implications: The study enhances our comprehension of the process of commercialising research in universities and emphasises the most significant incentives and barriers to university-industry collaboration, as revealed by the respondents. Therefore, some recommendations for policymakers arise from this study, especially in the area of supporting university–industry cooperation. Originality/value: The paper attempts to fulfil the research gap concerning the conceptual representation of universities’ commercialisation process within university-industry nexus. In terms of theoretical implication, detailed literature studies about universities’ research commercialisation and university – industry cooperation were preceded that allowed to answer the first research question. Additionally, empirical studies indicated incentives and barriers for university-industry cooperation. This research line contributes to management literature by complementing triple helix concept and knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

science commercialisation; university-industry cooperation; triple helix concept; knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship

PL

komercjalizacja nauki; współpraca uniwersytet-przemysł; koncepcja potrójnej helisy; teoria przedsiębiorczości oparta na rozprzestrzenianiu się wiedzy

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: z. 193
• Strony: 645--666
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 49 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Szulczewska-Remi Aleksandra

• Poznan University of Economics and Business, Department of Controlling, Financial Analysis and Valuation

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9043-8855

Bibliografia

• 1. Audretsch, D.B., Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1242–1254.
• 2. Booth, A., Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic Approaches to A Successful Literature Review. London: Sage Publications.
• 3. Caerteling, J., Halman, J.I.M., Dore´e, A.G. (2008). Technology commercialization in road infrastructure: How government affects the variation and appropriability of technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 143–161.
• 4. Chen, X., Liu, Z., Zhu, Q. (2018). Performance evaluation of China’s high-tech innovation process: Analysis based on the innovation value chain. Technovation, 74-75, 42–53.
• 5. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business Press.
• 6. Clayton, P., Feldman, M., Lowe, N. (2018). Behind the scenes: intermediary organizations that facilitate science commercialisation through entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), 104-124. doi:10.5465/amp.2016.0133.
• 7. Colen, L., Belderbos, R., Kelchtermans, S., Leten, B. (2022). Reaching for the stars: When does basic research collaboration between firms and academic star scientists benefit firm invention performance? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39, 222–264. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12607.
• 8. Cooper, R.G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44–54.
• 9. Dorf, R.C., Worthington, K.K.F. (1987). Models for commercialization of technology from university and research laboratories. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 12, 1-8.
• 10. Dosi, G., Llerena, P., Labini, M.S. (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, 35(10), 1450-1464.
• 11. Ernst, H. (1997). The use of patent data for technological forecasting: the diffusion of CNC-technology in the machine tool industry. Small Business Economics, 9, 361–381.
• 12. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as “quasi-firms”: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121. Retrieved from: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4
• 13. 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.
• 14. Fabrizio, K.R. (2009). Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy, 38(2), 255–267.
• 15. Fini, R., Rasmussen, E., Wiklund, J., Wright., M. (2019). Theories from the Lab: How Research on Science Commercialization can Contribute to Management Studies. Journal of Management Studies, 56, 5. doi:10.1111/joms .12424.
• 16. Forliano, C., De Bernardi, P., Yahiaoui, D. (2021). Entrepreneurial universities: A bibliometric analysis within the business and management domains. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 165. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120522.
• 17. Guan, J., Chen, K. (2010). Measuring the innovation production process: A cross-region empirical study of China’s high-tech innovations. Technovation, 30, 348–358.
• 18. Halilem, N., De Silva, M., Amara, N. (2022). Fairly assessing unfairness: An exploration of gender disparities in informal entrepreneurship amongst academics in business schools. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 174. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121295.
• 19. IBM (2021). Principal component analysis (PCA). https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ db2oc?topic=procedures-principal-component-analysis-pca.
• 20. Jalali, S., Wohlin, C. (2012). Systematic Literature Studies: Database Searches vs. Backward Snowballing. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2372251.2372257.
• 21. Johnson, D., Gianiodis, P.T., Harrison, R.T., Bock, A.J. (2023). From laboratory to clinic: science commercialization within university‐centered entrepreneurial ecosystems. R&D Management, 53(1), 3-23. doi:10.1111/radm.12535.
• 22. Jolly, V.K. (1997). Commercializing New Technologies: Getting from Mind to Market. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• 23. Kirchberger, M.A., Pohl, L. (2016). Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1077–1112. doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9486-3.
• 24. Kotlar, J., Massis, A., Wright, M., Frattini, F. (2018). Organizational goals: antecedents, formation processes and implications for firm behavior and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2, S3-S18.
• 25. Langridge, D., Hagger-Johnson, G. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. Harlow: Pearson.
• 26. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: Guide to Design and Implementation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• 27. Mitchell, W., Singh, K. (1996). Survival of businesses using collaborative relationships to commercialize complex goods. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 169–195.
• 28. Moutinho, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Coelho, A., Manso, J. (2016). Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12, 171–197.
• 29. OECD (2013). Commercialising Public Research: New Trends and Strategies. OECD Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264193321 en.
• 30. OECD (2015). Frascati Manual 2015. Guidelines For Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org.
• 31. Parmentola, A., Ferretti, M., Panetti, E. (2021). Exploring the university-industry cooperation in a low innovative region. What differences between low tech and high tech industries? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17, 1469–1496. doi:10.1007/s11365-020-00671-0.
• 32. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autioa, E., Broströmc, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldif, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitsong, M., Llerenai, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of
• the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007.
• 33. Petticrew, M., Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/ WileyTitle/productCd-1405121106.html.
• 34. Rothwell, R. (1992). Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s. R&D Management, 22(3), 221-239.
• 35. Rothwell, R., Zegveld, W. (1985). Reindrustralization and Technology. Longman.
• 36. Shin, H., Woo, H.G., Sohn, K., Lee, S. (2023). Comparing research trends with patenting activities in the biomedical sector: The case of dementia. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 195. doi:/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122790.
• 37. Szulczewska-Remi (2023). Pomiar działalności innowacyjnej przedsiębiorstw (The measure of companies’ innovation performance). In: C. Kochalski (eds). Analiza ekonomiczna przedsiębiorstw w warunkach niepewności (Economic analysis of companies under uncertainty). Poznań: Wydawnictwo UEP.
• 38. Szulczewska-Remi, A., Nowak-Mizgalska, H. (2023). Who really acts as an entrepreneur in the science commercialisation process: the role of knowledge transfer intermediary organisations. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. doi:10.1108/JEEE-09-2020-0334.
• 39. Thursby, J.G., Thursby, M.C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.
• 40. Utterback, J.M. (1971). The process of technological innovation within the firm. Academy of Management Journal, 14(1), 75–88.
• 41. Van Norman, G.A., Eisenkot, R. (2017). Technology Transfer: From the Research Bench to Commercialization: Part 2: The Commercialization Process. JACC: Basic to Translational Science, 2(2), 197–208.
• 42. Viale, R., Etzkowitz, H. (2010). The Capitalization of Knowledge. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• 43. Wang, Y., Wu, D., Li, H. (2022). Efficiency measurement and productivity progress of regional green technology innovation in China: a comprehensive analytical framework. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(12), 1432–1448. doi:10.1080/09537325.2021.1963427.
• 44. Yin, K.R. (1994), Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
• 45. Yin, K.R. (2018), Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
• 46. Yu, A., Shi, Y., You, J., Zhu, J (2021). Innovation performance evaluation for high-tech companies using a dynamic network data envelopment analysis approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 292, 199–212.
• 47. Zhao, F. (2007). Commercialization of research: a case study of Australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(2), 223-236.
• 48. Žižlavsky, O. (2013). Past, Present and Future of the Innovation process. International Journal of Engineering Business Management. doi:10.5772/56920.
• 49. Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Armstrong, J. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.