Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy

Asian Society for Innovation and Policy (아시아기술혁신학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

What Causes Technology Commercialization to Succeed or Fail after Transfer from Public Research Organizations

  • Received : 2017.01.12
  • Accepted : 2017.04.17
  • Published : 2017.04.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explores how the technology commercialization process leads to either success or failure after transfer from PROs to SMEs by conducting a binomial logistic regression analysis. We found that the more additional development a firm implements on the transferred technology, the more likely the commercialization is to fail. The higher number of alternative technology and bigger market risk are associated with a greater likelihood of failure. On the other hand, the existence of complementary technology, the degree of cooperation with the technology provider, the size of the target market, the willingness of the CEO, and the funding availability are known to have positive effects on the success of technology commercialization. In addition, the case studies we conducted from the sample companies demonstrated that "market uncertainty," "technological issues depending on the technology-specific characteristics," and "a lack of funding capability" are some of the causes for failure of technology commercialization.

Keywords

References

  1. Aldridge, T. and Audretsch, D.B. (2010) Does policy influence the commercialization route? evidence from National Institutes of Health funded scientists, Research Policy, 39(5), 583-588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.005
  2. Arora, A. and Fosfuri, A. (2003) Licensing the market for technology, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(2), 277-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00002-7
  3. Bercovitz, J. and Feldman, M. (2008) Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level, Organization Science, 19(1), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0295
  4. Bercovitz, J. and Feldman, M. (2011) The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: composition, social networks, and geography, Research Policy, 40(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.008
  5. Bozeman, B. (2000) Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory, Research Policy, 29(4), 627-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1
  6. Bozeman, B., Fay, D. and Slade, C.P. (2013) Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art, Journal of Technology Transfer 38, http://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8
  7. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. and Walsh, J.P. (2002) Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D, Management Science, 48(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273
  8. Colyvas, J.A., Snellman, K., Bercovitz, J. and Feldman, M. (2012) Disentangling effort and performance: a renewed look at gender differences in commercializing medical school research, Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 478-489. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9235-6
  9. Coupe, T. (2003) Science is golden: academic R&D and university patents, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021626702728
  10. Di Gregorio, D. and Shane, S. (2003) Why do some universities generate more startups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00097-5
  11. Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E
  12. Friedman, J. and Silberman, J. (2003) University technology transfer: do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021674618658
  13. Goldfarb, B. and Henrekson, M. (2003) Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property, Research Policy, 32(4), 639-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00034-3
  14. Haeussler, C. and Colyvas, J.A. (2011) Breaking the ivory tower: academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany, Research Policy, 40(1), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.012
  15. Hagedoorn, J. (2002) Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960, Research Policy, 31(4), 477-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00120-2
  16. Hoang, H. and Rothaermel, F.T. (2005) The effect of general and partner-specific alliance experience on joint R&D project performance, Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 332-345. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.16928417
  17. Jeong, S. and Lee, S. (2015) Strategic timing of academic commercialism: evidence from technology transfer, The Journal of Technology Transfer, http://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9424-9
  18. Kim, Y.J. and Shin, S.W. (2016) A Study on Patented Technology and New Firm Formation from Korean Universities, The Journal of Intellectual Property, 11(1), in press (in Korean).
  19. Knockaert, M., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M. and Clarysse, B. (2011) The relationship between knowledge transfer, top management team composition, and performance: the case of science‐based entrepreneurial firms, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 777-803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00405.x
  20. Li, D., Eden, L., Hitt, M.A. and Ireland, R.D. (2008) Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Partner selection in R&D alliances, Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 315-334. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.31767271
  21. Link, A.N. and Link, J.R. (2009) Government as entrepreneur, Oxford University Press New York.
  22. Link, A.N., Siegel, D.S. and 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm020
  23. Lungeanu, R., Stern, I. and Zajac, E.J. (2015) When do firms change technologysourcing vehicles? The role of poor innovative performance and financial slack, Strategic Management Journal.
  24. Mahoney, J.T., McGahan, A.M. and Pitelis, C.N. (2009) Perspective-the interdependence of private and public interests, Organization Science, 20(6), 1034-1052. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0472
  25. Mitchell, W. and Singh, K. (1996) Survival of businesses using collaborative relationships to commercialize complex goods, Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 169-195. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199603)17:3<169::AID-SMJ801>3.0.CO;2-#
  26. Mok, K.H. (2005) Fostering entrepreneurship: changing role of government and higher education governance in Hong Kong, Research Policy, 34(4), 537-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.003
  27. Mowery, D.C., Sampat, B.N. and Ziedonis, A.A. (2002) Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of US university patents after the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992, Management Science, 48(1), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.73.14278
  28. Mowery, D.C. and Ziedonis, A.A. (2002) Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the BayhaE Dole act in the United States, Research Policy, 31(3), 399-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00116-0
  29. Murray, F. and Graham, L. (2007) Buying science and selling science: gender differences in the market for commercial science, Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 657-689. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm021
  30. Nerkar, A. and Shane, S. (2007) Determinants of invention commercialization: an empirical examination of academically sourced inventions, Strategic Management Journal, 28(11), 1155-1166. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.643
  31. Owen-Smith, J. and Powell, W.W. (2001) To patent or not: faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 99-114. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007892413701
  32. Roessner, D., Bond, J., Okubo, S. and Planting, M. (2013) The economic impact of licensed commercialized inventions originating in university research, Research Policy, 42(1), 23-34. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.015
  33. Rothaermel, F.T., Agung, S.D. and Jiang, L. (2007) University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature, Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691-791. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm023
  34. Rothaermel, F.T. and Deeds, D.L. (2006) Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures, Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 429-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.006
  35. Rothaermel, F.T. and Thursby, M. (2005) University-incubator firm knowledge flows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance, Research Policy, 34(3), 305-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.11.006
  36. Shane, S. (2004) 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00114-3
  37. Siegel, D.S. and Wessner, C. (2012) Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: evidence from the small business innovation research program, Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 404-415. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9186-3
  38. Somaya, D., Kim, Y. and Vonortas, N.S. (2011) Exclusivity in licensing alliances: using hostages to support technology commercialization, Strategic Management Journal, 32(2), 159-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.883
  39. Thursby, J.G. and Kemp, S. (2002) Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing, Research Policy, 31(1), 109-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00160-8
  40. Thursby, J.G. and Thursby, M.C. (2002) Who is selling the ivory tower? sources of growth in university licensing, Management Science, 48(1), 90-104. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.90.14271
  41. Van de Vrande, V. (2013) Balancing your technology‐sourcing portfolio: how sourcing mode diversity enhances innovative performance, Strategic Management Journal, 34(5), 610-621. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2031
  42. Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N. and S'Jegers, R. (2006) Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: an examination of team heterogeneity, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 249-271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00120.x
  43. Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. and Sapienza, H.J. (2001) Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms, Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 587-613. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.183
  44. Zahra, S.A. and Nielsen, A.P. (2002) Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization, Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 377-398. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.229

Cited by

  1. Entrepreneurial Learning and Indian Tech Startup Survival: An Empirical Investigation vol.7, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.7545/ajip.2018.7.1.055
  2. Determinants of Technology Transfer and Commercialization in National Research and Development: Focusing on Korea Railroad Research Projects vol.7, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.7545/ajip.2018.7.3.438
  3. Does market competition promote innovation efficiency in China’s high-tech industries? vol.32, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1667971