Beyond multidirectional technology transfer

This article focuses on co-development technology transfer models. It offers an empirical analysis of a pioneer model applied in Italy: the proof-of-concept network (PoCN) applied by AREA Science Park in Trieste. Starting with a review of the literature, the authors identify the drivers that facilitate collaboration between the industrial and research systems in the embryonic phase of technology development. Then, discussing the PoCN model, the article analyzes and explores an emerging phenomenon that is as yet poorly understood. The application of a model for co-development, in fact, highlights many advantages for both firms and the research system and improves the efficiency of matching between these distant and heterogeneous sectors. The authors report a single case study which, while appearing to be a limitation of the article, offers elements of originality because it concerns the first applied co-development model in Italy. There are many practical implications, not only for firms and research institutions but also for policymakers who seek to implement public policies to support innovation and technology transfer.

[1]  Melissa A. Schilling,et al.  Mapping the Technological Landscape: Measuring Technology Distance, Technological Footprints, and Technology Evolution , 2016 .

[2]  Kira Fabrizio,et al.  Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment , 2008 .

[3]  Christopher S. Hayter,et al.  On the economic impact of university proof of concept centers , 2015 .

[4]  Pablo D'Este,et al.  The spatial profile of university-business research partnerships , 2010 .

[5]  A. Salter,et al.  Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A Review of the Literature on University-Industry Relations , 2012 .

[6]  F. Lissoni.  Academic inventors as brokers , 2010 .

[7]  J. Ferreira,et al.  Introduction to Multiple Helix Ecosystems for Sustainable Competitiveness , 2016 .

[8]  Till Albert.  Measuring Technology Maturity: Operationalizing Information from Patents, Scientific Publications, and the Web , 2016 .

[9]  M. Corsino,et al.  The Competitive Advantage of Business Units: Evidence from the Integrated Circuit Industry , 2009 .

[10]  Jan Dul,et al.  Case Study Methodology in Business Research , 2007 .

[11]  G. D. Stefano,et al.  Technology Push and Demand Pull Perspectives in Innovation Studies: Current Findings and Future Research Directions , 2012 .

[12]  D. P. Leyden,et al.  Public Sector Entrepreneurship: U.S. Technology and Innovation Policy , 2015 .

[13]  Maurizio Sobrero,et al.  Financing technology transfer: assessment of university-oriented proof-of-concept programmes , 2017, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[14]  A. Arora,et al.  The Market for Technology , 2010 .

[15]  Klaus Fichter,et al.  Sustainability-profiled incubators and securing the inflow of tenants – The case of Green Garage Berlin , 2017 .

[16]  Monica Gaughan,et al.  How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers☆ , 2011 .

[17]  David J. Siegel.  The Diversity Project as a Joint Venture , 2006 .

[18]  A. Salter,et al.  Exploring the Effect of Geographical Proximity and University Quality on University–Industry Collaboration in the United Kingdom , 2011 .

[19]  Yongtae Park,et al.  A patent portfolio-based approach for assessing potential R&D partners: An application of the Shapley value , 2016 .

[20]  S. Zahra,et al.  Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension , 2002 .

[21]  Changho Son,et al.  Development of dual technology roadmap (TRM) for open innovation: Structure and typology , 2013 .

[22]  Roger Sørheim,et al.  How governments seek to bridge the financing gap for university spin-offs: proof-of-concept, pre-seed, and seed funding , 2012, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[23]  S. Breschi,et al.  Mobility of Skilled Workers and Co-Invention Networks: An Anatomy of Localized Knowledge Flows , 2009 .

[24]  João Claro,et al.  The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: an exploratory study , 2013 .

[25]  A. Geuna,et al.  Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling , 2006 .

[26]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[27]  Christopher S. Hayter,et al.  Models and Methods of University Technology Transfer , 2013 .

[28]  Runolfur Smari Steinthorsson,et al.  Towards openness and inclusiveness , 2017 .

[29]  S. Dutta,et al.  Success in High-Technology Markets: is Marketing Capability Critical? , 1999 .

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

[31]  M. Passarelli,et al.  Brokerage and SME Innovation , 2012 .

[32]  N. Park,et al.  Do the Performances of Innovative Firms Differ Depending on Market-oriented or Technology-oriented Strategies? , 2012 .

[33]  Hyundo Choi,et al.  Technology-push and demand-pull factors in emerging sectors: evidence from the electric vehicle market , 2018 .

[34]  B. Dalum.  National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning , 1992 .

[35]  D. Teece.  Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation☆ , 1996 .

[36]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  Proof of concept centers: accelerating the commercialization of university innovation , 2008 .

[37]  B. Flyvbjerg.  Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research , 2006, 1304.1186.

[38]  Rosa Grimaldi,et al.  To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting , 2007, Scientometrics.

[39]  Olof Hallonsten,et al.  Collaborative technological innovation in an academic, user-oriented Big Science facility , 2017 .

[40]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities , 2001 .

[41]  Michele Costabile,et al.  A dynamic model of customer loyalty , 2000 .