Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
This Chapter detects the four causes behind the failure to translate discoveries into inventions: ignorance regarding market need; researchers’ lack of business knowledge and engagement with the industry; a scarcity of academic or executive profiles within a research team; and uncoachable researchers. Five hands-on mechanisms being applied to tackle those difficulties at prominent research centers are then presented: translating and mapping consumer needs through design thinking; following lean research principles by maximizing learning speed and minimizing testing costs; complementing the current services of the technology transfer office; creating diversified teams of academics (with Ph.Ds.) and executives (with MBAs); and measuring—in the recruitment, evaluation, and incentive scheme of academics—the ability to be mentored.
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:
Kolawole, E. A place for design thinking in academic research. Stanford University Institute of Design—The Whiteboard (2015). http://whiteboard.stanford.edu/blog/2015/03/24/a-place-for-design-thinking-in-academic-research.
Rynes, S. L. Let’s create a tipping point: what academics and practitioners can do, alone and together. Academy of Management Journal50, 1046–1054 (2007).
Lichtenthaler, U. External commercialization of knowledge: review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews7, 231–255 (2005).
Perkmann, M. et al. Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy42, 423–442 (2013).
OECD. Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016 (Brussels, Belgium: OECD, 2016).
Daglio, M. Public Sector Innovation: The Journey Continues (Brussels, Belgium: OECD, 2016).
Gruber, M., de Leon, N., George, G. & Thompson, P. Managing by design. Academy of Management Journal58, 1–7 (2015).
Plattner, H., Meinel, C. & Leifer, L. Design Thinking: Understand-Improve-Apply (Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 2011). (Source: https://hpi.de/fileadmin/user_upload/fachgebiete/meinel/papers/Book_Chapters/Front_Matter_-_Design_Thinking_Understand__Improve__Apply.pdf).
Siota, J. & Zorzella, L. Revenue Growth: Four Proven Strategies—Lean Principles Applied to Growth Companies and Startups (Madrid, Spain: McGraw-Hill, 2014).
Martin, R. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage (Boston, USA: Harvard Press, 2009).
Beverland, M. B., Wilner, S. J. S. & Micheli, P. Reconciling the tension between consistency and relevance: Design thinking as a mechanism for brand ambidexterity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science43, 589–609 (2015).
Glen, R., Suciu, C. & Baughn, C. The need for design thinking in business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education13, 653–667 (2014).
Siota, J., Klueter, T., Staib, D., Taylor, S. & Ania, I. Design Thinking: The New DNA of The Finacial Sector (IESE Business School; Oliver Wyman 2017).
Paul, S. M. et al. How to improve R & D productivity: The pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nature Reviews Drug discovery9, 203–214 (2010).
Siota, J. & Zorzella, L. Learn fast, design and never assume you’re right: the three principles of fast-growth companies. LSE Business Review October (2015). http://whiteboard.stanford.edu/blog/2015/03/24/a-place-for-design-thinking-in-academic-research.
Bhamu, J. & Singh Sangwan, K. Lean manufacturing: literature review and research issues. International Journal of Operations & Production Management34, 876–940 (2014).
Rocha, P. Selecting for impact: new data debunks old beliefs. Open Science and Peer Review (2015). http://whiteboard.stanford.edu/blog/2015/03/24/a-place-for-design-thinking-in-academic-research.
Powell, K. Does it take too long to publish research? Nature530, 148–151 (2016).
McKown, L. Why International Development Should Use Lean Research (World Economic Forum, 2015). http://whiteboard.stanford.edu/blog/2015/03/24/a-place-for-design-thinking-in-academic-research.
Lapchak, P. A., Zhang, J. H., Noble-Haeusslein, L. J. & Lapchak, P. A. RIGOR guidelines: escalating STAIR and STEPS for effective translational research. Translational Stroke Research4, 279–285 (2013).
MIT D-Lab. Lean Research (Working Paper) (2015).
Cohen, D. J. The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: Reasons for the divide and concrete solutions for bridging the gap. Academy of Management Journal50, 1013–1019 (2007).
Hoffecker, E., Leith, K. & Wilson, K. The Lean Research Framework: Principles for Human-Centered Field Research (MIT D-Lab, 2015). http://whiteboard.stanford.edu/blog/2015/03/24/a-place-for-design-thinking-in-academic-research.
Opinno. Leading Global Ecosystems Report 2013. (2013). http://whiteboard.stanford.edu/blog/2015/03/24/a-place-for-design-thinking-in-academic-research.
The Harvard Innovation Lab. Office Hours—Entrepreneur in Residence and Mentorhttps://i-lab.harvard.edu/meet/office-hours/ (2017).
IESE Barcelona Technology Transfer Group (BTTG). http://www.bcntech.eu/ (2017).
SAP. SAP University Alliances|Shaping the Future of Educationhttp://www.sap.com/training-certification/university-alliances.html (2017).
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Mack Institute for Innovation Management https://mackinstitute.wharton.upenn.edu/ (2017).
Shearer, K. & Bouthillier, F. Understanding knowledge management and information management: the need for an empirical perspective. Information Research8, (2002).
Rynes, S. L., Giluk, T. L. & Brown, K. G. The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resource management: implications for evidence-based management. Academy of Management Journal50, 987–1008 (2007).
Latham, G. P. A speculative perspective on the transfer of behavioral science findings to the workplace: “The times they are A-changin’”. Academy of Management Journal50, 1027–1032 (2007).
Klofsten, M. & Jones-Evans, D. Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—the case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics14, 299–309 (2000).
Bozeman, B. & Gaughan, M. Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy36, 694–707 (2007).
Ponomariov, B. & Craig Boardman, P. The effect of informal industry contacts on the time university scientists allocate to collaborative research with industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer33, 301–313 (2008).
Azagra-Caro, J. M. What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for the delocalisation of university–industry interaction. Technovation27, 704–715 (2007).
Hunt, V., Layton, D. & Prince, S. Why Diversity Matters (McKinsey Quarterly, 2015). http://whiteboard.stanford.edu/blog/2015/03/24/a-place-for-design-thinking-in-academic-research.
Edmondson, G., Valigra, L., Kenward, M., Hudson, R. L. & Belfield, H. Making industry–university partnerships work: Lessons from successful collaborations. Business Innovation Board AISBL 1–52 (2012).
Rohrbeck, R. & Arnold, H. M. Making university–industry collaboration work-a case study on the Deutsche Telekom Laboratories contrasted with findings in literature. In ISPIM Annual Conference: Networks for Innovation (2007). http://whiteboard.stanford.edu/blog/2015/03/24/a-place-for-design-thinking-in-academic-research.
MIT Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation. Selection Criteria. https://deshpande.mit.edu/criteria (2017).
Van Dierdonck, R., Debackere, K. & Engelen, B. University–industry relationships: How does the Belgian academic community feel about it? Research Policy19, 551–566 (1990).
MIT Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation. Mission and History. http://deshpande.mit.edu/about (2017).
- Stage 2: Transformation—Translating Discoveries into Impact for the Market Through Design Thinking
- Chapter 4
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Best Practices zu agiler Qualität