Object and Means of University-Firm Technology Transfer
Keywords:Object and means of technology transfer, universities, firms, innovation, agriculture.
AbstractGreater demand for food and the scarcity of natural resources reinforce the importance of research at universities and the transfer of their technologies to firms, particularly in the case of crops. In this context, the general aim of this study is to analyze the alignment of the object and means of university-firm technology transfer in Brazilian and American agriculture schools. The research is qualitative in nature, with multiple case studies of two American universities and a Brazilian university, selected using criteria such as excellence, accessibility and technological similarities. Among the results and contributions to the field, the innovations that were generated and the identification of the differences and similarities in formal and informal processes of university-firm technology transfer may be highlighted.
Aldrich, H.; Bolton, M.; Baker, T.& Sasaki, T. (1998). Information exchange and governance structures in US and Japanese R&D consortia: institutional and organizational influences. IEEE. Transactions on Engineering Management, 45(3), 263–275.
Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.
Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Baglieri, D., Baldi, F., & Tucci, C. L. (2018). University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all. Technovation.
Bidault, F.& Fischer, W.A. (1994). Technology transactions: networks over markets. R&D Management. 24, 373–386.
Bigliardi, B., Galati, F., Marolla, G., & Verbano, C. (2015). Factors affecting technology transfer offices' performance in the Italian food context. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(4), 361-384.
Boardman, C.& Gray, D. O. (2010). The new science and engineering management: cooperative research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 445–459.
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy. 29. 627–655.
Bozeman, B., Papadakis, M. & Coker, K. (1995). Industry perspectives on commercial interactions with federal laboratories: does the cooperative technology paradigm really work?, Report to the National Science Foundation. Research on Science and Technology Program, January.
Bozeman, B., Rogers, J., 1998. Knowledge value collectives: the proof of science is in the putting. Paper presented at the Conference on Laboratory Evaluation, Ecole des Mine, Paris, France, June 12-14, 1998.
Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571-650.
Cervo, A. L. & Bervian, P. A. (1983). Metodologia científica: para uso de estudantes universitários. 3. ed. São Paulo: McGraw-Hill.
Chesborugh, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Massachusetts. Harvard Business School Press.
Closs, L. Q., Ferreira, G. C. (2012). A transferência de tecnologia universidade-empresa no contexto brasileiro: uma revisão de estudos científicos publicados entre os anos 2005 e 2009. Gestão e Produção. São Carlos, 19(2), 419-432.
Comacchio, A., Bonesso, S., & Pizzi, C. (2012). Boundary spanning between industry and university: the role of Technology Transfer Centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 943-966.
Costa, P. R., & Junior, S. S. B. (2016). Atuação Dos Núcleos De Inovação Tecnológica Na Gestão Da Cooperação Universidade-Empresa. Revista de Administração FACES Journal, 15(4).
Cowan, R., Foray, D. (1995). Quandaries in the economics of dual technological and spillovers from military to civilian research and development. Research Policy. 24(6), 851–869.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Investigação qualitativa & projeto de pesquisa: escolhendo entre cinco abordagens. Porto Alegre: Penso.
Crow, M., Bozeman, B. (1998). Limited by Design: R&D Laboratories in the US National Innovation System. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
D’este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339.
De Fuentes, C., & Dutrénit, G. (2016). Geographic proximity and university–industry interaction: The case of Mexico. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(2), 329-348.
Di Gregorio D. & Shane, S. (2003). Why Do Some Universities Generate More Start-Ups than Others? Research Policy. 32(2), 209-227.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research Groups As ‘Quasi-Firms’: The Invention of the Entrepreneurial University. Research Policy, 32(1): 109–121.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy. 29 (2), 109-123.
Garnica, L. A. & Torkomian, A.L. V. (2009). Gestão de tecnologia em universidades: uma análise do patenteamento e dos fatores de dificuldade e de apoio à transferência de tecnologia no Estado de São Paulo. Gestão e Produção, 16(4), 624-638.
Grant, E.B. & Gregory, M.J. (1997). Tacit knowledge, the life cycle and international manufacturing transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 9 (2) 149–161.
Grimpe, C. & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: a comparison between the United States and Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 35(6), 637-650.
Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., Raghian, M., & Smith, D. (1997). Mapping the university technology transfer process. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6), 423-434.
Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. The Review of Economic and Statistics, 80(1), 119-127.
Hendriks. J. (2012). Technology transfer in human vaccinology: a retrospective review on public sector contributions in a privatizing science field. Vaccine, 30 (44). 6230– 6240.
Jensen, R. & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240-259.
Lai, W. H. (2011). Willingness-to-engage in technology transfer in industry–university collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 64(11), 1218-1223.
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.
Link, A. N.; Siegel, D. S. Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Oxford Journals,16(4), 641-655.
Lynn, L.H., Reddy, N.M.& Aram, J.D., 1996. Linking technology and institutions — the innovation community framework. Research Policy, (25)1, 91–106.
Malecki, E. & Tootle, D. (1996). The role of networks in small firm competitiveness. International Journal of Technology Management. 11 (1-2), 43–57.
Malecki, E. (1981). Government funded R&D: some regional economic implications. The Professional Geographer. 33(1), 72-82.
Melo, P. A. de. (2002). A cooperação universidade/empresa nas universidades públicas brasileiras. Tese de Doutorado. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brasil.
Miller, K., McAdam, R., & McAdam, M. (2018). A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: toward a research agenda. R&D Management, 48 (1), 7-24.
Minayo, M. C. de S. et al. (1994). Pesquisa social: teoria, método e criatividade. Petrópolis -RJ: Vozes.
Mowery D. & Sampat, B. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In: Fargerberg, J.; Mowery, D.; Nelson, R. (Orgs.). The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mowery D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B, N.& Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy. 30(1), 99–119.
O'shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research policy, 34(7), 994-1009.
Park, S. H., & Lee, Y. G. (2011). Perspectives on Technology Transfer Strategies of Korean Companies in Point of Resource and Capability Based View. Journal of technology management & innovation, 6(1), 161-184.
Piper, W.S., Naghshpour, S. (1996). Government technology transfer: the effective use of both push and pull marketing strategies. International Journal of Technology Management. 12(1), 85–94.
Roper, S., Gormley, B., & Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2013). Knowledge and Technology Transfer Links: The Differential Connectivity of Publicly Funded University and Company-Based Research Centres.
Rosenberg, N. & Nelson, R.R., 1994. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy. 23, 323–348.
Ruiz, M. S., Da Costa, P. R., Kniess, C. T., & Ribeiro, A. P. (2017). Proposal of a theoretical model for the implementation and scalability of science parks: a case study. RAI - Revista de Administração e Inovação, 14(1), 2-15.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., 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.
Srivastava, P., & Chandra, S. (2012). Technology Commercialization: Indian University Perspective. Journal of technology management & innovation, 7(4), 121-131.
Stal, E. & Fujino, A. (2005). As relações universidade-empresa no Brasil sob a ótica da Lei de Inovação. Revista de Administração e Inovação, 2(1), 5-19.
Susanty, A., Puspitasari, D., Puspitasari, N. B., & Sinthani Ninditarini, M. R. (2011. Preliminary Study of Key Success Factors for Effective Knowledge Transfer in SMEs Batik (Case Study SMEs Batik in Solo). In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on industrial Engineering and Operations Management Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), p. 90-104.
Watkins, T. (1990). Beyond guns and butter: managing dual-use technologies. Technovation 10(6) 389-406.
WEF. (2015). World Economic Forum. The Global Competitiveness Report 2014 - 2015. Recuperado em 03 julho, 2015, de http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015
Yin, R. K. (2001). Estudo de caso. Planejamento e métodos. Porto Alegre: Bookman,
Zucker, L. G.& Darby, M. R. (2001). Capturing technological opportunity via Japan's star scientists: evidence from Japanese firms' biotech patents and products. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), pages 37-58.
How to Cite
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).