Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology Transfer Assessment: An Integrated Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
R&D Management in the Knowledge Era

Part of the book series: Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management ((ITKM))

  • 2407 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents a methodological approach to measure an organization’s technology transfer capabilities. The integrated approach is a combination of action research in the first phase and a hierarchical decision modeling (HDM) in the second phase, and rather than focusing on assessing a single technology or project/program, focuses on assessing the organization as a whole, i.e., the model brings insights on how ready the organization is in order to successfully transfer technologies from the research stage into an operational stage. The following sections bring a detailed explanation on action research as a research approach and on HDM as a decision-making method, as well as the presentation of the assessment framework with the necessary steps to build the model and to apply it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2005). Handbook of action research: Concise paperback edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chandler, D., & Torbert, B. (2003). Transforming inquiry and action interweaving 27 flavors of action research. Action Research, 1(2), 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. Providence, RI: LAB, Northeast and Island Regional Education Laboratory at Brown University.

    Google Scholar 

  4. O’Brien, R. (1998). An overview of the methodological approach of action research. Toronto, ON: Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tripp, D. (2005). Action research: A methodological introduction. Educação e Pesquisa, 31(3), 443–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Martí, J. (2016). Measuring in action research: Four ways of integrating quantitative methods in participatory dynamics. Action Research, 14(2), 168–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dick, D., & Dick, B. (2015). Reflections on the SAGE encyclopedia of action research and what it says about action research and its methodologies. Action Research, 13(4), 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Davidson, A. O. (2009). Observing action research processes in practice. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Village, J., Greig, M., Salustri, F., Zolfaghari, S., & Neumann, W. P. (2014). An ergonomics action research demonstration: Integrating human factors into assembly design processes. Ergonomics, 57(10), 1574–1589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dick, B., & Greenwood, D. (2015). Theory and method: Why action research does not separate them. Action Research, 13(2), 194–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McManners, P. (2016). The action research case study approach: A methodology for complex challenges such as sustainability in aviation. Action Research, 14(2), 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Perona, M., Saccani, N., Bonetti, S., & Bacchetti, A. (2016). Manufacturing lead time shortening and stabilisation by means of workload control: An action research and a new method. Production Planning and Control, 27(7–8), 660–670.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., & Probert, D. R. (2001). Technology management process assessment: A case study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(8), 1116–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ottosson, S. (2003). Participation action research—A key to improved knowledge of management. Technovation, 23(2), 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Faure, F., Hocdé, H., & Chia, E. (2011). Action research methodology to reconcile product standardization and diversity of agricultural practices: A case of farmers’ organizations in Costa Rica. Action Research, 9(3), 242–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Moschitz, M., & Home, R. (2014). The challenges of innovation for sustainable agriculture and rural development: Integrating local actions into European policies with the Reflective Learning Methodology. Action Research, 12(4), 392–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Arcidiacono, C., Grimaldi, D., Di Martino, S., & Procentese, F. (2016). Participatory visual methods in the ‘Psychology loves Porta Capuana’ project. Action Research, 14(4), 376–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ingram, M., Murrietta, L., de Zapien, J. G., Herman, P. M., & Carvajal, S. C. (2015). Community health workers as focus group facilitators: A participatory action research method to improve behavioral health services for farmworkers in a primary care setting. Action Research, 13(1), 48–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nyman, V., Berg, M., Downe, S., & Bondas, T. (2016). Insider action research as an approach and a method – Exploring institutional encounters from within a birthing context. Action Research, 14(2), 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rydenfält, C., Larsson, P.-A., & Odenrick, P. (2017). An action-oriented method for interprofessional organization development at a hospital operating unit. Action Research, 15(2), 177–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Voigt, J. R., Hansen, U. M., Glindorf, M., Poulsen, R., & Willaing, I. (2014). Action research as a method for changing patient education practice in a clinical diabetes setting. Action Research, 12(3), 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Clover, D. (2011). Successes and challenges of feminist arts-based participatory methodologies with homeless/street-involved women in Victoria. Action Research, 9(1), 12–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Viikki, K., & Palviainen, J. (2011). Integrating human-centered design into software development: An action research study in the automation industry. In Software engineering and advanced applications (SEAA), 2011 37th EUROMICRO conference on (pp. 313–320).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Duncan, G., & Ridley-Duff, R. (2014). Appreciative Inquiry as a method of transforming identity and power in Pakistani women. Action Research, 12(2), 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Arantes, A., Ferreira, L. M. D., & Kharlamov, A. A. (2014). Application of a purchasing portfolio model in a construction company in two distinct markets. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(5), 04014020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shen, C.-Y., & Midgley, G. (2015). Action research in a problem avoiding culture using a Buddhist systems methodology. Action Research, 13(2), 170–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gerassi, L., Edmond, T., & Nichols, A. (2017). Design strategies from sexual exploitation and sex work studies among women and girls: Methodological considerations in a hidden and vulnerable population. Action Research, 15, 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kattman, B. R. (2012). An action research study; cultural differences impact how manufacturing organizations receive continuous improvement. The National Graduate School of Quality Management.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dey, P. K., Bhattacharya, A., & Ho, W. (2015). Strategic supplier performance evaluation: A case-based action research of a UK manufacturing organisation. International Journal of Production Economics, 166, 192–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schoenherr, T., Tummala, V. R., & Harrison, T. P. (2008). Assessing supply chain risks with the analytic hierarchy process: Providing decision support for the offshoring decision by a US manufacturing company. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 14(2), 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Small, A., & Wainwright, D. (2014). SSM and technology management: Developing multimethodology through practice. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(3), 660–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Waring, T., Johnston, L., McGrane, A., Nguyen, T., & Scullion, P. (2013) Developing knowledge sharing partnerships in the SME sector: An action research approach. In European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies (p. 354).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Houngbo, P. T., Coleman, H. L. S., Zweekhorst, M., Buning, T. D. C., Medenou, D., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2017). A model for good governance of healthcare technology management in the public sector: Learning from evidence-informed policy development and implementation in Benin. Plos One, 12(1), e0168842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kocaoglu, D. F. (1983). A participative approach to program evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 3, 112–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Munkongsujarit, S., & et al. (2009). Decision model for a place to live at PSU: The case of international graduate students. In PICMET 09—2009 Portland international conference on management of engineering and technology (pp. 513–534). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Taha, R. A., Choi, B. C., Chuengparsitporn, P., Cutar, A., Gu, Q., & Phan, K. (2007). Application of hierarchical decision modeling for selection of laptop. In PICMET 07—2007 Portland international conference on management of engineering and technology (pp. 1160–1175). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Phan, K., & Kocaoglu, D. F. (2014). Innovation measurement framework to determine innovativeness of a company: Case of semiconductor industry. In Proceedings of PICMET’14 conference: Portland international center for management of engineering and technology; infrastructure and service integration (pp. 747–757).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sheikh, N. J., Park, Y., & Kocaoglu, D. F. (2014) Assessment of solar photovoltaic technologies using multiple perspectives and hierarchical decision modeling: Manufacturers worldview. In Proceedings of PICMET’14 conference: Portland international center for management of engineering and technology; infrastructure and service integration (pp. 491–497).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Turan, T., Amer, M., Tibbot, P., Almasri, M., Al Fayez, F., & Graham, S. (2009). Use of hierarchal decision modeling (HDM) for selection of graduate school for master of science degree program in engineering. In PICMET 09—2009 Portland international center for management of engineering and technology (pp. 535–549).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gerdsri, P., & Kocaoglu, D. F. (2008). HDM for developing national emerging technology strategy and policy supporting sustainable economy: A case study of nanotechnology for Thailand’s agriculture. No. c (pp. 27–31).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Thompson, J., Barnwell, B., Calderwood, T., Kumar, A., & Vang, S. (2011). Decision model for Portland metro bike commuters.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hogaboam, L., Ragel, B., & Daim, T. (2014). Development of a hierarchical decision model (HDM) for health technology assessment (HTA) to design and implement a new patient care database for low back pain (pp. 3511–3517).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wang, B., Kocaoglu, D. F., Daim, T. U., & Yang, J. (2010). A decision model for energy resource selection in China. Energy Policy, 38(11), 7130–7141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Estep, J. (2017). Development of a technology transfer score for evaluating research proposals: Case study of demand response technologies in the Pacific northwest. Portland, OR: Portland State University.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Chen, H., & Kocaoglu, D. F. (2008). A sensitivity analysis algorithm for hierarchical decision models. European Journal of Operational Research, 185(1), 266–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Phan, K. (2013). Innovation measurement: A decision framework to determine innovativeness of a company. Portland, OR: Portland State University.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Abotah, R. (2015). Evaluation of energy policy instruments for the adoption of renewable energy: Case of wind energy in the Pacific northwest U.S. PhD, Portland, OR: Portland State University.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Expert Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary. Cambridge Dictionary [Online]. Retrieved Sept 08, 2017, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/expert.

  50. “Definition of PANEL,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary [Online]. Retrieved Sept 08, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panel.

  51. Nemet, G. F., Anadon, L. D., & Verdolini, E. (2017). Quantifying the effects of expert selection and elicitation design on experts’ confidence in their judgments about future energy technologies. Risk Analysis, 37(2), 315–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Morgan, M. G. (2014). Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(20), 7176–7184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Tran, T. A. (2013). Strategic evaluation of university knowledge and technology transfer effectiveness. Portland, OR: Portland State University.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Chan, L. (2013). Developing a strategic policy choice framework for technological innovation: Case of Chinese pharmaceuticals. Portland, OR: Portland State University.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Knol, A. B., Slottje, P., van der Sluijs, J. P., & Lebret, E. (2010). The use of expert elicitation in environmental health impact assessment: A seven step procedure. Environmental Health, 9(1), 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Iskin, I. (2014). An assessment model for energy efficiency program planning in electric utilities: Case of the Pacific of northwest U.S.A. Diss. theses.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Gibson, E. C. (2016). A measurement system for science and engineering research center performance evaluation.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Abbas, M. (2016). Consistency analysis for judgment quantification in hierarchical decision model. Diss. theses.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Trevethan, R. (2017). Intraclass correlation coefficients: Clearing the air, extending some cautions, and making some requests. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 17(2), 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sheskin, D. J. (2003). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  62. Andale. F test: Definition, examples, how to run one. Statistics how to [Online]. Retrieved Sept 09, 2017, from http://www.statisticshowto.com/f-test/.

  63. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Chen, H. (2007). Sensitivity analysis for hierarchical decision models. PhD, Portland State University, Portland, OR.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Portland, OR, USA

    João Ricardo Lavoie & Tuğrul Daim

Authors
  1. João Ricardo Lavoie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tuğrul Daim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuğrul Daim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering and Technology, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

    Tuğrul Daim

  2. Faculty of Economics & Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Marina Dabić

  3. İzmir Institute of Technology, Urla, Izmir, Turkey

    Nuri Başoğlu

  4. Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

    João Ricardo Lavoie

  5. School of Computer Science, Innovation, and Management Engineering College of Management, Long Island University (LIU), Greenvale, NY, USA

    Brian J. Galli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lavoie, J.R., Daim, T. (2019). Technology Transfer Assessment: An Integrated Approach. In: Daim, T., Dabić, M., Başoğlu, N., Lavoie, J.R., Galli, B.J. (eds) R&D Management in the Knowledge Era. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15409-7_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation