Evaluation model for research and development commercialization capability

The purpose of this research was to study the research and development (R&D) evaluation process situation and identify criteria for commercialization capability in Thai government in research institutes. The data were collected by in-depth interviews and purposive sampling is deployed. Series of interviews were conducted with 14 Thai experts from all the eight Thai government research institutes which stipulated R&D commercialization as their mission. The research results revealed that most of Thai R&D institutes focus on basic research; hence, the developed technology does not fit to the industrial demand. This paper hence suggested that the research institute should set the research agenda based on market together with technology driven. To assess the commercialization capability, six criteria for R&D project commercialization capability are technology, marketing, finance, intellectual property, resource, and beneficial impact should be considered but at different level relates to R&D development process. This paper is based on innovation theory to decrease the ambiguous subjectivity of Fuzzy expert system. Moreover, the proposed model explains major criteria to be used at each R&D development process to ensure commercialization capability.

[1]  Xinping Liu,et al.  Equitable financial evaluation method for public-private partnership projects , 2008 .

[2]  Richard Lichenstein,et al.  Development and implementation of a performance measure tool in an academic pediatric research network. , 2010, Contemporary clinical trials.

[3]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

[4]  Young Hoon Kwak,et al.  Risk management framework for pharmaceutical research and development projects , 2008 .

[5]  Dilanthi Amaratunga,et al.  Performance measurement in the construction research and development , 2007 .

[6]  Manabu Eto,et al.  Commercialization of government funded R&D: Follow-up research survey on NEDO research projects , 2011, 2011 Proceedings of PICMET '11: Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET).

[7]  N. Somsuk,et al.  Determining enabling factors of University Technology Business Incubation program: Resource-based view theory , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.

[8]  E. Huizingh Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives , 2011 .

[9]  Dan Segal,et al.  The Complementary Relationship between Financial and Non-Financial Information in the Biotechnology Industry and the Degree of Investor Sophistication , 2010 .

[10]  Kristel Miller,et al.  An exploratory study of retaining and maintaining knowledge in university technology transfer processes , 2011 .

[11]  V. Martin Managing innovation. , 2000, Nursing management.

[12]  Byun Jungwook,et al.  Analysis of the factors to affect technology transfer fee in the intellectual property management , 2009, PICMET '09 - 2009 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology.

[13]  Dilanthi Amaratunga,et al.  Structured approach to measure performance in construction research and development: Performance measurement system development , 2011 .

[14]  Hemantha S. B. Herath,et al.  Real-Option Valuation of Research and Development Investments: Implications for Performance Measurement , 2018 .

[15]  M.L. Tseng,et al.  The synergetic impact of manufacturing strategy development on operations-based non-financial performance , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.

[16]  Paula van Veen-Dirks,et al.  Financial versus non-financial information: The impact of information organization and presentation in a Balanced Scorecard , 2010 .

[17]  Yair Holtzman Strategic research and development: it is more than just getting the next product to market , 2011 .

[18]  Vittorio Chiesa,et al.  Performance measurement of research and development activities , 2009 .

[19]  Kathleen R. Allen Bringing New Technology to Market , 2002 .

[20]  Federica Rossi,et al.  The governance of university‐industry knowledge transfer , 2010 .

[21]  A. Sivathanu Pillai,et al.  Performance measurement of R&D projects in a multi-project, concurrent engineering environment , 2002 .

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

[23]  S. Zuspan The pediatric emergency care applied research network. , 2006, Journal of emergency nursing: JEN : official publication of the Emergency Department Nurses Association.

[24]  David J. Teece,et al.  Forward Integration and Innovation: Transaction Costs and Beyond , 2010 .

[25]  Bowon Kim,et al.  An effective R&D performance measurement system: survey of Korean R&D researchers , 2002 .

[26]  Cyril M. Logar,et al.  Commercializing intellectual property: a university‐industry alliance for new product development , 2001 .

[27]  K.P. White,et al.  Project selection for technology investment , 2005, 2005 IEEE Design Symposium, Systems and Information Engineering.

[28]  Mark Jansen,et al.  Influence of partner diversity on collaborative public R&D project outcomes : a study of application and commercialization of nanotechnologies in the Netherlands , 2012 .

[29]  김슬기,et al.  Entrepreneurship , 2021, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

[30]  Nola Hewitt-Dundas,et al.  Creating advantage in peripheral regions: The role of publicly funded R&D centres , 2011 .