تجاری سازی اختراعات ناشی از تحقیقات دانشگاه : تجزیه و تحلیل تاثیر ویژگی های تکنولوژی بر مدل های کسب و کار متعاقب
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|7700||2011||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 8390 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Technovation, Volume 31, Issue 4, April 2011, Pages 151–160
One of the key challenges in commercializing inventions arising from academic research is deciding on an appropriate business model for transferring the invention from the academic world to the commercial world. However, there is little empirical evidence to suggest which model to choose. This study attempts to address this gap by examining how characteristics of technologies affect the selection of business models. We consider four characteristics of technology: patent or other legal protection, specialized complementary assets, commercial uncertainty and technological dynamism. We relate these characteristics to the choice of three basic business models for commercializing inventions. Data for this study were gathered for 42 commercialized inventions. We found evidence that greater patent or other legal protection for the technology was associated with a greater likelihood that the technology was commercialized by transferring limited rights to the technology to existing firms. We also found evidence that greater commercial uncertainty was associated with a greater likelihood that the technology was commercialized by creation of a new firm or transfer of the rights to the technology to an existing firm. We did not find evidence of a relationship between the importance of specialized complementary assets or technological dynamism and the business model used.
Universities perform approximately 17% of research and development activities in OECD member countries (OECD, 2006) and are an important source of inventions that may result in new technologies of commercial significance (Chesbrough, 2003). However, universities are not in the business of producing goods and services based on these inventions (Shane, 2004) and, consequently, the commercialization of these inventions typically involves the transfer of knowledge and intellectual property rights to these inventions across organizational boundaries. One of the key challenges in commercializing inventions resulting from academic research is deciding on an appropriate business model for transferring the invention from the academic world to the commercial world. However, there is little empirical evidence to suggest which model to choose. Better understanding of the reasons for different forms of commercialization can help inventors and others involved in the commercialization process to select appropriate methods for commercializing inventions. Many factors may affect the method selected to commercialize an invention. These include the quality of management available to lead the commercialization effort, the availability of financial capital, external factors and the characteristics of technologies such as the strength of intellectual property protection for the technology (Rothaermel et al., 2007, Shane, 2004 and Auerswald and Branscomb, 2003). Many of these factors have been studies in considerable detail. However, the research to date on the effect of various characteristics of technologies on methods of commercialization is limited and has produced conflicting results. The research described in this study attempts to address these issues and asks the research question: How do the characteristics of technologies affect the selection of business models used to commercialize inventions arising from university research?
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
6.1. Limitations and future research This study is subject to a number of limitations. One is the small sample size which limits the ability of the analyses to detect small effect sizes. While the sample size is limited, there are very few large sample studies in this field and, therefore, this study provides a valuable contribution despite this limitation. Second is the limitation of survey methodologies for measuring complex variables. The concept of specialized complementary assets is a difficult one. Gans et al. (2002) who used a measure for specialized complementary assets similar to the one used in this study did not find a statistically significant result. It may be that the concept is too complex to reliably measure using survey methods (Babbie, 1999 and Kasch and Dowling, 2008). Future research can address this issue by considering alternative measures and sources of data. For example, previous studies have looked at the effectiveness of patents on an industry wide basis (Levin et al., 1987) and used these measures of effectiveness when considering individual new technologies (Shane, 2002). A similar approach might be practicable for complementary assets since it is reasonable to expect that the existence of specialized complementary assets varies by industry. A third limitation of this study results from the sample being drawn from two universities located in the same geographic area. The choice of intense examination of faculty from a small geographic area rather than a broader sample from numerous universities was made to minimize the impact of environmental factors such as differing economic environments and the availability of venture capital. However, this approach limits the generalizability of the findings. Speed to market may often be a very important consideration in the commercialization of inventions arising from university research. We examined the relationship between technology characteristics and business models but did not examine whether these business models different in the speed to market of products based on inventions arising from university research. Future research could examine this critical issue. 6.2. Implications The empirical findings of this study suggest that technology attributes may have an impact on the methods used to commercialize inventions arising from university research. Specifically, the results suggest that, when intellectual property protection for a technology is weak, creation of a new firm to produce goods or services based on the technology or transferring substantially all of the rights to the technology to an existing firm are likely to be used more often than retaining ownership of the technology and transferring limited rights to use the technology to existing firms. Firms that produce goods or services based on the technology can use speed to market to gain competitive advantage or use secrecy to protect their technology. Conversely, licensing broadly requires stronger intellectual property protection to enable the inventor to appropriate gains from the technology since secrecy and other methods of appropriate gains are unlikely to be effective. This is a particularly important finding since previous research found conflicting evidence concerning the impact of the strength of intellectual property protection on the choice of method for commercializing the innovation. For example Shane (2002) found that, when patents are effective, the new technology is likely to be commercialized by licensing while del Campo et al. (1999) suggest that, when the proprietary position of a technology is narrow or unpatentable, licensing is an appropriate method of commercializing the technology. The findings of our research provide a possible explanation for, and reconciliation of, these conflicting findings. Shane (2002) found that when patents are not effective, technologies are likely to be licensed back to the inventors. Shane’s discussion suggests that the situations involving licensing back to the inventors represent situations where the inventor commercializes the technology by creating a new firm to develop new products or services based on the technology. Thus, this study can be reframed as suggesting that, when patents are ineffective, technologies are likely to be commercialized by creation of a new firm to produce goods or services based on the technology. del Campo et al. (1999, p. 294) discuss the attempt to commercialize superconducting quantum interference devices. They conclude that “licensing may be the best strategy when the proprietary position of the intellectual property is narrow or unpatentable and when the capabilities of the developer are limited”. In their discussion of the licensing option, they refer to the licensee as a single firm and indicate that commonly the licensee will have the rights to improvements in the technology. This description is consistent with the technology sale business model. Thus, this study can be reframed as suggesting that, when intellectual property protection is weak, a technology sale business model approach to commercialization is appropriate. Our findings are consistent with the reframed analyses of both Shane and del Campo, et al. and provides a method for reconciling these previously inconsistent findings. Our results also suggest that, when there is greater commercial uncertainty associated with the technology, creation of a new firm to produce goods or services based on the technology or transferring substantially all of the rights to the technology to an existing firm are likely to be more effective. Firms that control both the technology and produce goods based on the technology have greater ability to coordinate and adapt in the face of uncertain environments. Conversely, when a technology is licensed broadly, coordination and adaptation between the licensor and the licensees is more difficult.