Mind the Gap: Lessons from the UK to Brazil about the Roles of TTOs throughout Collaborative R&D Projects

[1]  A. Silbermann.  Análisis de contenido , 1973 .

[2]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[3]  Carl J. Dahlman.  National systems supporting technical advance in industry : the Brazilian experience , 1990 .

[4]  M. Bell,et al.  Technological Accumulation and Industrial Growth: Contrasts Between Developed and Developing Countries , 1993 .

[5]  H. Rush,et al.  Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer , 1995 .

[6]  M. Kotabe,et al.  The role of strategic alliances in high‐technology new product development , 1995 .

[7]  C. Freeman.  The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective , 1995 .

[8]  A. Rip,et al.  Mediation in the Dutch science system , 1998 .

[9]  J. H. Dyer,et al.  Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: the Toyota case , 2000 .

[10]  M. Santoro.  Success breeds success , 2000 .

[11]  C. Freeman.  Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems--complementarity and economic growth , 2002 .

[12]  Miguel P Caldas,et al.  Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches , 2003 .

[13]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[14]  Andreas M Riege,et al.  Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with “hands‐on” applications for each research phase , 2003 .

[15]  A. Neely,et al.  Networking and Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Evidence , 2004 .

[16]  Jose Manoel Carvalho de Mello,et al.  Towards “meta-innovation” in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix , 2005 .

[17]  M. Dodgson,et al.  The Role of Technology in the Shift Towards Open Innovation: The Case of Procter & Gamble , 2006 .

[18]  Nicholas Walliman,et al.  Social research methods , 2006 .

[19]  A. Agrawal.  Engaging the Inventor: Exploring Licensing Strategies for University Inventions and the Role of Latent Knowledge , 2006 .

[20]  J. Howells.  Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation , 2006 .

[21]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[22]  Hiroyuki Okamuro.  Determinants of successful R&D cooperation in Japanese small businesses: The impact of organizational and contractual characteristics , 2007 .

[23]  K. Provan,et al.  Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness , 2007 .

[24]  M. Wright,et al.  Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications , 2007 .

[25]  R. Nelson,et al.  Public research institutions and economic catch-up , 2007 .

[26]  Graham M. Winch,et al.  The Organization of Innovation Brokers: An International Review , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[27]  N. Hacıevliyagil,et al.  The Positions of Virtual Knowledge Brokers in the Core Process of Open Innovation , 2007 .

[28]  J. West,et al.  Open innovation : researching a new paradigm , 2008 .

[29]  A. Zaheer,et al.  Trust in Inter‐organizational Relations , 2008 .

[30]  R. Yin,et al.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed. , 2009 .

[31]  R. Kozhikode,et al.  Developing New Innovation Models: Shifts in the Innovation Landscapes in Emerging Economies and Implications for Global R & D Management , 2009 .

[32]  M. Benassi,et al.  Playing in between: Patent Brokers in Markets for Technology , 2009 .

[33]  C. Leeuwis,et al.  Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity: Are Innovation Brokers the Answer? , 2009 .

[34]  Peter T. Gianiodis,et al.  Advancing a Typology of Open Innovation , 2010 .

[35]  L. Klerkx,et al.  Orchestrating innovation networks: The case of innovation brokers in the agri-food sector , 2010 .

[36]  Stephani K. A. Robson,et al.  First findings from the UK Innovation Survey 2009 , 2010 .

[37]  S. Radosevic.  Science-industry links in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States: conventional policy wisdom facing reality , 2011 .

[38]  O. Gassmann,et al.  The role of intermediaries in cross‐industry innovation processes , 2011 .

[39]  Wilson Suzigan,et al.  The underestimated role of universities for the Brazilian system of innovation , 2011 .

[40]  Mokter Hossain.  Performance and Potential of Open Innovation Intermediaries , 2012 .

[41]  Innovation and entrepreneurship in Brazilian universities , 2008, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[42]  C. Billington,et al.  Leveraging Open Innovation Using Intermediary Networks , 2013 .

[43]  Marine Agogué,et al.  RETHINKING THE ROLE OF INTERMEDIARIES AS AN ARCHITECT OF COLLECTIVE EXPLORATION AND CREATION OF KNOWLEDGE IN OPEN INNOVATION , 2013 .

[44]  Dominique Philippe Martin,et al.  Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices , 2013 .

[45]  I. Deschamps,et al.  University-SME Collaboration and Open Innovation: Intellectual-Property Management Tools and the Roles of Intermediaries , 2013 .

[46]  U. Lichtenthaler.  The Collaboration of Innovation Intermediaries and Manufacturing Firms in the Markets for Technology , 2013 .

[47]  Michaela Trippl,et al.  The Role of Universities in Regional Development: Conceptual Models and Policy Institutions in the UK, Sweden and Austria , 2015 .

[48]  A. Petruzzelli,et al.  A literature review on markets for ideas: Emerging characteristics and unanswered questions , 2014 .

[49]  Paula Kivimaa.  Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions , 2014 .

[50]  James R Cook.  Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research , 2014 .

[51]  Keun Lee,et al.  Different Impacts of Scientific and Technological Knowledge on Economic Growth: Contrasting Science and Technology Policy in East Asia and Latin America , 2015 .

[52]  P. Jensen,et al.  Trust and the market for technology , 2015, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[53]  D. Kale,et al.  National innovation systems and the intermediary role of industry associations in building institutional capacities for innovation in developing countries: a critical review of the literature , 2015 .

[54]  Paulo Pontes.  Brazilian scientific production vs. innovation and technology. , 2015, Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology.

[55]  F. Munari,et al.  Determinants of the university technology transfer policy-mix: a cross-national analysis of gap-funding instruments , 2016 .

[56]  M. Wright,et al.  Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness , 2016, Small Business Economics.

[57]  L. Klerkx,et al.  Addressing barriers to eco-innovation: Exploring the finance mobilisation functions of institutional innovation intermediaries , 2016 .

[58]  Cinzia Battistella,et al.  Inter-organisational technology/knowledge transfer: a framework from critical literature review , 2015, The Journal of Technology Transfer.

[59]  E. Carayannis,et al.  Technology commercialization in entrepreneurial universities: the US and Russian experience , 2016 .

[60]  A. Scandura.  University–industry collaboration and firms’ R&D effort , 2016 .

[61]  Rosa Grimaldi,et al.  How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach , 2017 .

[62]  Josiane Fachini Falvo.  Pesquisa de Inovação (PINTEC) 2014 , 2017 .

[63]  M. Wiener,et al.  Explicating the role of innovation intermediaries in the “unknown”: a contingency approach , 2017 .

[64]  Pilsung Kang,et al.  Identifying core topics in technology and innovation management studies: a topic model approach , 2018 .

[65]  D. Urbano,et al.  Innovation practices in emerging economies: Do university partnerships matter? , 2019 .