nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

01.10.2016

Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness

verfasst von: Annelore Huyghe, Mirjam Knockaert, Evila Piva, Mike Wright

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Most universities committed to the commercialization of academic research have established technology transfer offices (TTOs). Nonetheless, many researchers bypass these TTOs and take their inventions directly to the marketplace. While TTO bypassing has typically been portrayed as deliberate and undesirable behavior, we argue that it could be unintentional as many researchers may simply be unaware of the TTO’s existence. Taking an information-processing perspective and using data on 3250 researchers in 24 European universities, we examine researcher attributes associated with TTO awareness. Our evidence confirms that only a minority of researchers are aware of the existence of a TTO at their university. TTO awareness is greater among researchers who possess experience as entrepreneurs, closed many research and consulting contracts with industry partners, conduct research in medicine, engineering or life sciences, or occupy postdoctoral positions. Policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Vorheriger Artikel Students climbing the entrepreneurial ladder: Does university internationalization pay off?

Nächster Artikel Entrepreneurial universities and overt opportunism

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

It is worth acknowledging that, while we identified the individual attributes building upon information-processing arguments, prior research on academic entrepreneurship has also generally accepted these attributes as important human and social capital dimensions (e.g., Ambos et al. 2008; Mosey and Wright 2007; Powers and McDougall 2005; Toole and Czarnitzki 2010).

Information on the universities included length and structure of the interviews, and data collected during the interviews can be obtained from the authors upon request.

Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 382–400.CrossRef

Ambos, T. C., Makela, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.CrossRef

Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123.CrossRef

Audretsch, D. (2007). The entrepreneurial society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher Education, 45, 43–70.CrossRef

Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.CrossRef

Belenzon, S., & Schankerman, M. (2009). University knowledge transfer: Private ownership, incentives, and local development objectives. Journal of Law and Economics, 52, 111–144.CrossRef

Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 21–35.CrossRef

Bienkowska, D., & Klofsten, M. (2012). Creating entrepreneurial networks: Academic entrepreneurship, mobility and collaboration during PhD education. Higher Education, 64, 207–222.CrossRef

Brescia, F., Colombo, G., & Landoni, P. (2015). Organizational structures of knowledge transfer offices: An analysis of the world’s top-ranked universities. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-014-9384.

Caldera, A., & Debande, O. (2010). Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 39, 1160–1173.CrossRef

Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1–2), 199–232.CrossRef

Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384.CrossRef

Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon Press.

Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van De Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 183–216.CrossRef

Cliff, J., Devereaux, J., & Greenwood, R. (2006). New to the game and questioning the rules: The experiences and beliefs of founders who start imitative versus innovative firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 633–663.CrossRef

Coupe, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 31–46.CrossRef

Damsgaard, E. F., & Thursby, M. C. (2013). University entrepreneurship and professor privilege. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 183–218.CrossRef

Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.CrossRef

Day, D., & Lord, R. 1992. Expertise and problem categorization: The role of expert processing in organizational sensemaking. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 35–47.CrossRef

Derrick, G. E. (2015). Integration versus separation: Structure and strategies of the technology transfer office (TTO) in medical research organizations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 105–122.CrossRef

Dietz, J., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.CrossRef

Erikson, T., Knockaert, M., & Foo, M.-D. (2015). Enterprising scientists: The shaping role of norms, experience and scientific productivity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 99, 211–221.CrossRef

Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.CrossRef

Fiet, J. (2007). A prescriptive analysis of search and discovery. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), 592–611.CrossRef

Foltz, J., Barham, B., & Kim, K. (2000). Universities and agricultural biotechnology patent production. Agribusiness, 16(1), 82–95.CrossRef

Forbes, D. (1999). Cognitive approaches to new venture creation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(4), 415–439.CrossRef

Forbes, D. (2007). Reconsidering the strategic implications of decision comprehensiveness. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 361–376.CrossRef

Franklin, S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 127–141.CrossRef

Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.CrossRef

Fritsch, M., & Krabel, S. (2012). Ready to leave the ivory tower?: Academic scientists’ appeal to work in the private sector. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(3), 271–296.CrossRef

Gaglio, C. M., & Katz, J. A. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics, 16(2), 95–111.CrossRef

Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49(4), 366–382.CrossRef

Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1045–1057.CrossRef

Gruber, M., MacMillan, I., & Thompson, J. (2013). Escaping the prior knowledge corridor: what shapes the number and variety of market opportunities identified before market entry of technology start-ups? Organization Science, 24(1), 280–300.CrossRef

Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 43–74.CrossRef

Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950.CrossRef

Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Cultural clusters: Methodology and findings. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 11–15.CrossRef

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. A global perspective. New York: Prentice Hall.

Hansen, E. L., & Allen, K. R. (1992). The creation corridor: Environmental load and pre-organization information processing ability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(1), 57–65.

Huber, G., & Daft, R. (1987). The information environments of organizations. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 130–164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hulsbeck, M., Lehmann, E., & Starnecker, A. (2011). Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 199–215.CrossRef

Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Wright, M., & Piva, E. (2014). Technology Transfer Offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: The case of a hybrid model. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 289–307.CrossRef

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67–90.CrossRef

Kenney, M., & Goe, W. R. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professional entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33, 691–707.CrossRef

Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh–Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38, 1407–1422.CrossRef

Kirby, D. A., Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2011). Making universities more entrepreneurial: Development of a model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28(3), 302–316.CrossRef

Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe: The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299–309.CrossRef

Knockaert, M., Foo, M.-D., Erikson, T., & Cools, E. (2015). Growth intentions among entrepreneurial research scientists: A cognitive style perspective. Technovation, 38, 64–74.CrossRef

Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company?: An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38(6), 947–956.CrossRef

Krücken, G. (2003). Learning the ‘New, New Thing’: On the role of path dependency in university structures. Higher Education, 46, 315–339.CrossRef

Kumar, M. N. (2010). Ethical conflicts in commercialization of university research in the post-Bayh–Dole era. Ethics and Behavior, 20(5), 324–351.CrossRef

Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2–3), 252–264.CrossRef

Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: “Gold”, “ribbon”, or “puzzle”? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354–1368.CrossRef

Landry, R., Nabil, A., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 561–592.CrossRef

Larsen, M. T. (2011). The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence. Research Policy, 40, 6–19.CrossRef

Lazear, E. (2004). Balanced skills and entrepreneurship. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 208–211.CrossRef

Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25(6), 843–863.CrossRef

Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of US university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106–1112.CrossRef

Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 253–257.CrossRef

Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.CrossRef

Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.CrossRef

Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 185–200.CrossRef

Lord, R., & Maher, K. (1990). Alternative information-processing models and their implications for theory, research and practice. Academy of Management Review, 15, 9–28.

Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy, 26(7–8), 773–776.CrossRef

Markman, G. G., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2008). Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 29–36.CrossRef

Markman, G., Gianiodis, P., Phan, P., & Balkin, D. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: To incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3), 353–364.CrossRef

Markman, G. D., Gianodis, P. T., & Phan, P. (2006). Sidestepping the ivory tower: Rent appropriations through bypassing of U.S. universities, Mimeograph, University of Georgia.

Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263.CrossRef

Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. B. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 27(2), 93–104.CrossRef

Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6), 909–935.CrossRef

Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of U.S. university patents after the Bayh–Dole act, 1981–1992. Management Science, 48(1), 73–89.CrossRef

Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33(4), 643–659.CrossRef

Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 181–202.CrossRef

OECD (2003). Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organizations. Paris: OECD.

O’Kane, C., Mangematin, V., Geoghegan, W., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Policy, 44(2), 421–437.CrossRef

Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. 2007. Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of management, 33(2), 196–222.CrossRef

Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M. & Van Hove, J. (2016). Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. Technovation, 50, 13–24.CrossRef

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.CrossRef

Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37(10), 1884–1891.CrossRef

Petersen, M. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.CrossRef

Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 218–228.CrossRef

Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2, 77–144.CrossRef

Pilegaard, M., Moroz, P., & Neergaard, H. (2010). An auto-ethnographic perspective on academic entrepreneurship: Implications for research in the social sciences and humanities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 46–61.CrossRef

Powers, J. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26–50.CrossRef

Powers, J., & McDougall, P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291–311.CrossRef

Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influence of university departments on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy, 4(1), 92–106.CrossRef

Rogers, E. M., Yin, J., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at US research universities. The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 12(1), 47–80.

Ronstadt, R. (1988). The corridor principal and entrepreneurial time. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(1), 31–40.CrossRef

Rothaermel, F., Agung, S., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.CrossRef

Schmiemann, M., & Durvy, J.-N. (2003). New approaches to technology transfer from publicly funded research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1, 9–15.CrossRef

Schoen, A., de la Potterie, B. V. P., & Henkel, J. (2014). Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 435–453.

Sellenthin, M. (2009). Technology transfer offices and university patenting in Sweden and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 603–620.CrossRef

Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469.CrossRef

Shane, S. (2004a). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRef

Shane, S. (2004b). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh–Dole act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127–151.CrossRef

Shane, S., Dolmans, S., Jankowski, J., Reymen, I., & Romme, A. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: which inventors do technology licensing officers prefer for spin-offs? Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 273–292.CrossRef

Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 16(2), 23–45.

Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(1), 91–112.CrossRef

Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.CrossRef

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.CrossRef

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1–2), 115–142.CrossRef

Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). University technology transfer offices, licensing, and start-ups. In Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship (pp. 1–40).

Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, Communication, and the Public Interest (pp. 40–41). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–144.CrossRef

Stuetzer, M., Obschonka, M., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2013). Balanced skills among nascent entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 41(1), 93–114.CrossRef

Thune, T. (2009). Doctoral students on the university–industry interface: A review of the literature. Higher Education, 58(5), 637–651.CrossRef

Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59–72.CrossRef

Toole, A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2010). Commercializing science: Is there a university “brain drain” from academic entrepreneurship? Management Science, 55(9), 1599–1614.CrossRef

Van Knippenberg, D., Dahlander, L., Haas, M. R., & George, G. (2015). Information, attention, and decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 649–657.CrossRef

Vanacker, T., & Forbes, D. (2015). Disentangling the multiple effects of affiliate reputation on resource attraction in new firms. Ghent University and University of Minnesota Working Paper.

Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. In J. Katz (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth, 3 (pp. 119–138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439.CrossRef

Weckowska, D. M. (2015). Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation, 41, 62–74.CrossRef

Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy, 40(8), 1128–1143.CrossRef

Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2009). Information search and opportunity identification the importance of prior business ownership experience. International Small Business Journal, 27(6), 659–680.CrossRef

Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37, 1205–1223.CrossRef

Wright, M., Piva, E., Mosey, S., & Lockett, A. (2009). Business schools and academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 560–587.CrossRef

Zahra, S. A., & Newey, L. R. (2009). Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science: Theory-Building at the Intersection of Disciplines and/or Fields. Journal of Management Studies, 46(6), 1059–1075.CrossRef

Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.CrossRef

Titel: Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness
verfasst von: Annelore Huyghe
Mirjam Knockaert
Evila Piva
Mike Wright
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9757-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Centralization and delegation practices in family versus non-family SMEs: a Rasch analysis

Innovation processes in family firms: the relevance of organizational flexibility

Company metamorphosis: professionalization waves, family firms and management buyouts

Family business going abroad: the effect of family ownership on foreign market entry mode decisions

Students climbing the entrepreneurial ladder: Does university internationalization pay off?

Entrepreneurial universities: emerging models in the new social and economic landscape