Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Academic knowledge and technology transfer has been growing in importance both in academic research and practice. A critical question in managing this activity is how to evaluate its effectiveness. The literature shows an increasing number of studies done to address this question; however, it also reveals important gaps that need more research. One novel approach is to evaluate the effectiveness of this activity from an organizational point of view, which is to measure how much knowledge and technology transfer from a university fulfills the mission of the institution. This research develops a hierarchical decision model to measure the contribution values of various knowledge and technology transfer mechanisms to the achievement of the mission. The performance values obtained from the university under investigation are applied to the model to develop a Knowledge and Technology Transfer Effectiveness Index for that university. The Index helps an academic institution assess the current performance of its knowledge and technology transfer with respect to its mission. This robust model also helps decision makers discover areas where the university is performing well, or needs to pay more attention. In addition, the university can benchmark its own performance against its peers in order to set up a roadmap for improvement. It is proved that this is the first index in the literature which truly evaluates the effectiveness of university knowledge and technology transfer from an organizational perspective. Practitioners in the area of academic technology transfer can also apply this evaluation model to quantitatively evaluate the performance of their institutions for strategic decision-making purposes.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833. CrossRef
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 627–655. CrossRef
Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114. CrossRef
Gopalakrishnan, S., & Santoro, M. D. (2004). Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: The role of key organizational factors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(1), 57–69. CrossRef
Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 1, 44–60. CrossRef
Polanyi, M. (1983). Chapter 1: Tacit knowing. In The tacit dimension. Reprinted Peter Smith, Gloucester, MA. (First published Doubleday & Co, 1966).
DeVol, R., Bedroussian, A., Babayan, A., Frye, M., Murphy, D., Phillipson, T., et al. (2006). Mind to market: A global analysis of university biotechnology transfer and commercialization. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Institute.
Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2008). Formal and informal technology transfer from academia to industry: Complementarity effects and innovation performance. No. 08-080. ZEW Discussion Papers.
Agrawal, A. K. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285–302. CrossRef
Geisler, E., & Rubenstein, A. (1989). University-industry relations: A review of major issues. In Cooperative research and development: The industry-university–government relationship. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 43–59.
Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned from quantitative and qualitative research in the US and the UK Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics, Number 0609. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy.
Warren, A., Hanke, R., & Trotzer, D. (2008). Models for university technology transfer: Resolving conflicts between mission and methods and the dependency on geographic location. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(2), 219–232. CrossRef
Link, A., & Siegel, D. (2005). Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. The European Journal of Finance, 11(3), 169–181. CrossRef
Rogers, E. M., Hall, B. J., Hashimoto, M., Steffensen, M., Speakman, K. L., & Timko, M. K. (1999). Technology transfer from university-based research centers: The University of New Mexico experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 687–705. 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, XII, 47–80.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Henriksen, A. D. P. (1997). A technology assessment primer for management of technology. International Journal of Technology Management, 13(5), 615–638. CrossRef
Rogers, E. M., Takegami, S., & Yin, J. (2001). Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21(4), 253–261. CrossRef
Sorensen, J. A. T., & Chambers, D. A. (2007). Evaluating academic technology transfer performance by how well access to knowledge is facilitated - defining an access metric. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 534–547. CrossRef
- Decision-Making Tools: University Technology Transfer Effectiveness
Thien Anh Tran
- Chapter 12
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta