Commercialising Public Research under the Open Innovation Model: New Trends
PDF (Русский)
PDF

Keywords

open innovation
technology transfer
commercialization
co-operation
industry
public research institutes
universities

How to Cite

CervantesM., & MeissnerD. (2014). Commercialising Public Research under the Open Innovation Model: New Trends. Foresight and STI Governance, 8(3), 70-81. https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459x.2014.3.70.81

Abstract

Public research plays an extremely important role in social and economic development, and has implications for industry, services, education, training, the creation and diffusion of knowledge, management etc. In turn, R&D and innovation activities in the business sector are becoming increasingly open. Being influenced by increasingly tightened global competition, companies are entering into partnerships with other companies, universities or public research institutions (PRIs) to leverage competences from different places and organizations to foster innovation. The search for partners and the management of many co-operations itself are new challenges especially in terms of administering intellectual property rights. Universities and PRIs must respond to the changing requirements imposed by companies while maintaining their unique positions as research and science related institutions. The overall framework conditions for these actors are changing, which in turn requires new government policies especially given the slowdown in key performance indicators of the commercialization activities of PRIs.

The paper highlights recent trends and approaches related to knowledge and technology transfer from public research and education to industry. It considers legislative initiatives to target industry engagement and research personnel, new technology transfer office models, collaborative intellectual property (IP) tools, and initiatives to facilitate access to public research results. The authors stress that the quality of research has a strong influence on knowledge and technology transfer. In turn, contrary to the widespread belief that knowledge and technology transfer activities might negatively impact scientists’ academic work several studies found evidence that the engagement of scientists in technology transfer and commercialization activities does not have negative impacts on the quality and quantity of academic research. In fact, scientists who are actively engaged in technology and knowledge transfer, i.e. through patenting, also enjoy a high scientific reputation and in most cases do excellent scientific work.

https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459x.2014.3.70.81
PDF (Русский)
PDF

References

AUTM (2009a) Highlights of the AUTM U.S. Licensing Activity Survey: FY2008. Deerfield, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.

AUTM (2009b) Highlights of the AUTM Canadian Licensing Activity Survey: FY2008. Deerfield, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.

AUTM (2010a) Highlights of the AUTM U.S. Licensing Activity Survey: FY2009. Deerfield, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.

AUTM (2010b) Highlights of the AUTM Canadian Licensing Activity Survey: FY2009. Deerfield, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.

AUTM (2011a) Highlights of the AUTM U.S. Licensing Activity Survey: FY2010. Deerfield, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.

AUTM (2011b) Highlights of the AUTM Canadian Licensing Activity Survey: FY2010. Deerfield, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.

AUTM (2012a) Highlights of the AUTM U.S. Licensing Activity Survey: FY2011. Deerfield, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.

AUTM (2012b) Highlights of the AUTM Canadian Licensing Activity Survey: FY2011. Deerfield, IL: Association of University Technology Managers.

Breschi S., Lissoni F., Montobbio F. (2006) University patenting and scientific productivity: A quantitative study of Italian academic inventors (Cespri Working Paper № 189, November). Milano: Bocconi University.

Buenstorf G. (2009) Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society//Research Policy. Vol. 38. P. 281-292.

Calderini M., Franzoni C. (2004) Is academic patenting detrimental to high quality research? An empirical analysis of the relationship between scientific careers and patent applications (Cespri Working Paper № 162, October). Milano: Bocconi University.

Carayol N. (2007) Academic incentives, research organization and patenting at a large French university//Economics of Innovation and New Technology. Vol. 16. № 2. P. 119-138.

Cervantes M., Guellec D., Kupka D. (2014) Les pratiques de valorization de la recherche publique: Un éclairage international//Realites Industrielles. Fevrier. P. 56-61.

Chesbrough H. (2006) Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation//Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm/Eds. H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, J. West. New York Oxford University Press. P. 1-12.

DIISR (2011) Australian National Survey of Research Commercialisation: 2008 and 2009. Canberra: Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Australia.

DIISR (2012) Australian National Survey of Research Commercialisation: 2010 and 2011. Canberra: Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Australia.

European Commission (2012) Interim Findings 2011 of the Knowledge Transfer Study 2010-2012. Bonn, Maastricht, Solothurn: European Commission.

Fabrizio K.R. (2009) Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation//Research Policy. Vol. 38. № 2. Р. 255-267.

Fukugawa N. (2009) Determinants of licensing activities of local public technology centers in Japan//Technovation. Vol. 29. P. 885-892.

HEFCE (2009) Higher Education -Business and Community Interaction Survey 2007-2008. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

HEFCE (2010) Higher Education -Business and Community Interaction Survey 2008-2009. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

HEFCE (2011) Higher Education -Business and Community Interaction Survey 2009-2010. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

HEFCE (2012) Higher Education -Business and Community Interaction Survey 2010-2012. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Hoefer R., Magill B., Santos F. (2013) Inside the mind of European academic entrepreneurs -Perceptions of ACES finalists about the process of science entrepreneurship. Science/Business Innovation Board.

Kroll H., Schiller D. (2010) Establishing an interface between public sector applied research and the Chinese enterprise sector: Preparing for 2020//Technovation. Vol. 30. P. 117-129.

Meissner D. (2012) Results and impact of national foresight studies//Futures. Vol. 44. № 10. P. 905-913.

Meissner D., Zaichenko S. (2012) Regional balance of technology transfer and innovation in transitional economy: Empirical evidence from Russia//International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems. Vol. 2. № 1. P. 38-71.

Meyer M. (2006) Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology//Research Policy. Vol. 35. P. 1646-1662.

Nayyar D. (2006) Globalisation, history and development: A tale of two centuries//Cambridge Journal of Economics. Vol. 30. № 1. Р. 137-159.

OECD (2008) Open Innovation in Global Networks. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2012) OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012. Paris: OECD. Режим доступа: , дата обращения 17.06.2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2012-en

OECD (2013a) OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013. Paris: OECD. Режим доступа: , дата обращения 17.06.2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2013-en

OECD (2013b) Commercialising Public Research: New Trends and Strategies. Paris: OECD. Режим доступа: , дата обращения 17.06.2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264193321-en

Oerlemans L., Knoben J. (2010) Configurations of knowledge transfer relations: An empirically based taxonomy and its determinants//Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. Vol. 27. P. 33-51.

Shmatko N. (2013) Graduates' Competencies for the Innovation Labour Market (HSE Working Paper Series: Science, Technology and Innovation, WP BRP 13/STI/2013). Moscow: HSE.

Spithoven A., Clarysse B., Knockaert M. (2010) Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries//Technovation. Vol. 30. P. 130-141.

Teece D.J. (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfounds of (sustainable) enterprise performance//Strategic Management. Vol. 28. P. 1319-1350.

Tether B., Tajar A. (2008) Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base//Research Policy. Vol. 37. P. 1079-1095.

Van Looy B., Callaert J., Debackere K. (2006) Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing?//Research Policy. Vol. 35. P. 596-608.

Vishnevskiy K., Karasev O., Meissner D. (2014) Integrated roadmaps and corporate Foresight as tools of innovation management: The case of Russian companies. Technolocical Forecasting and Social Change (in print). Available at: , accessed 05.07.2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.04.011

Åstebro T., Bazzazian N., Braguinsky S. (2012) Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy//Research Policy. Vol. 41. P. 663-677.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.