A method to assess and support exploitation projects of university researchers

Assessing the exploitation potential of university research is needed to improve the efficiency of a Technology Transfer Office (TTO) and to increase chances of picking up and supporting viable entrepreneurial projects. The paper proposes an assessment method that jointly looks into the technology and the commercialization perspectives of research exploitation projects. The commercialization perspectives are further subdivided to criteria characterizing the market opportunities and management team. The method is applied to an ad hoc TTO in the Agricultural University of Athens (AUA). In addition to selecting exploitation projects proposed by AUA researchers, the method is also used to design support services for the research teams during the commercialization process. Relating the assessment outcome to the support of exploitation is a topic that received limited attention so far. In the case of universities that are about to start investing in technology transfer, the proposed approach can assist management to define strategies and corresponding services for academic entrepreneurship that are in line with the organization’s research profile. For more mature technology transfer environments, the method can be used to diversify the services of the TTO, by including forms of interaction with industry and businesses better serving the research community.

[1]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Gender Patterns of Research and Licensing Activity of Science and Engineering Faculty , 2005 .

[2]  Louise A. Heslop,et al.  Development of a Technology Readiness Assessment Measure: The Cloverleaf Model of Technology Transfer , 2001 .

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

[4]  Christopher S. Hayter.  Harnessing University Entrepreneurship for Economic Growth , 2013 .

[5]  George Mavrotas,et al.  Project prioritization under policy restrictions. A combination of MCDA with 0-1 programming , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  Koenraad Debackere,et al.  The Role of Academic Technology Transfer Organizations in Improving Industry Science Links , 2005 .

[7]  C. Hallam,et al.  Early phase technology management valuation practices by university licensing offices in the United States: empirical data from a survey of the top 100 organizations , 2011, 2011 Proceedings of PICMET '11: Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET).

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

[9]  D. Siegel.  Academic entrepreneurship: lessons learned for university administrators and policymakers , 2012 .

[10]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Industry/University Licensing: Characteristics, Concerns and Issues from the Perspective of the Buyer , 2003 .

[11]  Phillip H. Phan,et al.  Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research , 2005 .

[12]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society , 2012, The Journal of Technology Transfer.

[13]  Kavoos Mohannak,et al.  A criteria based approach for evaluating innovation commercialisation , 2014 .

[14]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  The entrepreneurial society , 2007 .

[15]  M. Feldman,et al.  Entpreprenerial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Knowledge-Based Economic Development , 2006 .

[16]  Kyriakos Drivas,et al.  Research funding and academic output: evidence from the Agricultural University of Athens , 2015 .

[17]  J. Gans,et al.  The Product Market and the Market for 'Ideas': Commercialization Strategies for Technology Entrepreneurs , 2002 .

[18]  F. Rothaermel,et al.  University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature , 2007 .

[19]  H. Etzkowitz.  Research groups as ???quasi-firms???: the invention of the entrepreneurial university , 2003 .

[20]  Tsvi Vinig,et al.  Measuring the performance of university technology transfer using meta data approach: the case of Dutch universities , 2015 .

[21]  Joseph Friedman,et al.  University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter? , 2003 .

[22]  D. Urbano,et al.  The development of an entrepreneurial university , 2012 .

[23]  Koenraad Debackere.  The TTO: a university engine transforming science into innovation , 2012 .

[24]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  Knowledge Spillover Entrepreneurship , 2010 .

[25]  Ravi Jain,et al.  Evaluating the Commercial Potential of Emerging Technologies , 2003 .

[26]  Muhittin Oral,et al.  A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects , 1991 .

[27]  Jan Youtie,et al.  The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model , 2015 .

[28]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory , 2000 .

[29]  Luis Rabelo,et al.  Assessment Framework for the Evaluation and Prioritization of University Inventions for Licensing and Commercialization , 2006 .

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

[31]  Thomas J. Allen,et al.  Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework , 2008 .

[32]  Alan B. Bennett,et al.  Establishing a technology transfer office. , 2007 .

[33]  John H. Smith,et al.  The Evolution of University-Based Knowledge Transfer Structures. The EUIMA Collaborative Research Project Papers. , 2014 .