Abstract
This study performs an in-depth analysis of the causes and consequences of team boundary-spanning activities in the context of Chinese technology transfer, by addressing three related research questions: what are the drivers of teams’ boundary-spanning activities? How do teams conduct boundary-spanning activities? What is the impact of teams’ boundary-spanning activities? Based on the “input–moderator–output–input” model of team effectiveness theory, this study firstly explores which factors drive technology transfer teams to engage in boundary-spanning activities. Then, it examines the effects that such activities have on technology transfer performance, both directly and indirectly, through a set of mediating factors. Finally, it explores whether external environmental conditions play any moderating role in the relationship between team boundary-spanning activities and team performance. The empirical analysis is based on original primary survey data collected from a representative sample of organizations involved in the Chinese technology transfer system. The study both contributes the team effectiveness theory applied to the specific context of technology transfer and offers practical suggestions to managers of technology transfer intermediaries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agrawal, A. K. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00069.
Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1977.4409044.
Alexander, A. T., & Martin, D. P. (2013). Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.07.013.
Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategic for Team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334–365. https://doi.org/10.5465/256328.
Ancona, D. G., Bresman, H., & Kaeufer, K. (2002). The comparative advantage of X-teams: The current environment demands a new brand of team—One that emphasizes outreach to stakeholders and adapts easily to flatter organizational structures, changing information and increasing complexity. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 33–40.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992a). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.321.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992b). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634.
Andersen, P. H., & Kragh, H. (2015). Exploring boundary-spanning practices among creativity managers. Management Decision, 53(4), 786–808. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2014-0399.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Belso-Martínez, J. A., Mas-Verdu, F., & Chinchilla-Mira, L. (2020). How do interorganizational networks and firm group structures matter for innovation in clusters: Different networks, different results. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2019.1659673.
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007828026904.
Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration. Technovation, 30(2), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.11.002.
Bresman, H. (2010). External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organization Science, 21(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0413.
Brion, S., Chauvet, V., Chollet, B., & Mothe, C. (2012). Project leaders as boundary spanners: Relational antecedents and performance outcomes. International Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 708–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.001.
Brown, T. M., & Miller, C. E. (2000). Communication networks in task-performing groups. Small Group Research, 31(2), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100201.
Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006.
Brunetta, F., Marchegiani, L., & Peruffo, E. (2020). When birds of a feather don’t flock together: Diversity and innovation outcomes in international R&D collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 114, 436–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.033.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159921.
Cesaroni, F., & Piccaluga, A. (2016). The activities of university knowledge transfer offices: Towards the third mission in Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 753–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9401-3.
Chau, V. S., Gilman, M., & Serbanica, C. (2017). Aligning university–industry interactions: The role of boundary spanning in intellectual capital transfer. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.013.
Child, J. (1997). Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organizations and environment: Retrospect and prospect. Organization Studies, 18(1), 43–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800104.
Choi, J. N. (2002). External activities and team effectiveness. Small Group Research, 33(2), 181–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640203300202.
Chung, Y., & Jackson, S. E. (2013). The internal and external networks of knowledge-intensive teams. Journal of Management, 39(2), 442–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310394186.
Comacchio, A., Bonesso, S., & Pizzi, C. (2012). Boundary spanning between industry and university: The role of technology transfer centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(6), 943–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9227-6.
Corsino, M., Giuri, P., & Torrisi, S. (2018). Technology spin-offs: Teamwork, autonomy, and the exploitation of business opportunities. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9669-1.
Crupi, A. (2020). Technology transfer and team boundary-spanning activities and their antecedents: Do the classic measures apply to China? R&D Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12441.
David, F. R., & David, F. R. (2003). It’s time to redraft your mission statement. Journal of Business Strategy. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/288/2003/00000024/00000001/art00003.
Demircioglu, M. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2018). Conditions for complex innovations: Evidence from public organizations. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9701-5.
Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393080.
D’Este, P., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. (2013). Shaping the formation of university–industry research collaborations: What type of proximity does really matter? Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), 537–558. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbs010.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040637.
Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392145.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., Lawrence, K. A., & Miner-Rubino, K. (2002). Red light, green light: Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling. Organization Science, 13(4), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.355.2949.
Dwyer, F. R., & Welsh, M. A. (1985). Environmental relationships of the internal political economy of marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(4), 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378502200405.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999.
Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00386.
Edmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J.-F. (2018). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.03.002.
Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 604–617. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014367.
Fitzgerald, C., & Cunningham, J. A. (2016). Inside the university technology transfer office: Mission statement analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 1235–1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9419-6.
Friedman, R. A., & Podolny, J. (1992). Differentiation of boundary spanning roles: Labor negotiations and implications for role conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393532.
Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they Believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.5465/257089.
Gibson, C. B., & Dibble, R. (2013). Excess may do harm: Investigating the effect of team external environment on external activities in teams. Organization Science, 24(3), 697–715. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0766.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 499. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392936.
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00987.x.
Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 905–922. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.226.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667032.
Hargadon, A. B. (1998). Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165951.
Hayter, C. S., Rasmussen, E., & Rooksby, J. H. (2018). Beyond formal university technology transfer: Innovative pathways for knowledge exchange. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9677-1.
Hellström, T., & Jacob, M. (2003). Boundary organisations in science: From discourse to construction. Guildford: Beech Tree Publishing.
Hernes, T. (2004). Studying composite boundaries: A framework of analysis. Human Relations, 57(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704042712.
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309343469.
Hirst, G., & Mann, L. (2004). A model of R&D leadership and team communication: The relationship with project performance. R&D Management, 34(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2004.00330.x.
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308587.
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005.
Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Wright, M., & Piva, E. (2014). Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: The case of a hybrid model. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9537-1.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input–process–output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638.
Joshi, A., Pandey, N., & Han, G. (2009). Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 731–759. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.567.
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331491.
Justin Tan, J., & Litsschert, R. J. (1994). Environment–strategy relationship and its performance implications: An empirical study of the Chinese electronics industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150102.
Kennedy, F. A., Loughry, M. L., Klammer, T. P., & Beyerlein, M. M. (2009). Effects of organizational support on potency in work teams. Small Group Research, 40(1), 72–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408326744.
Knapp, R. (2010). Collective (team) learning process models: A conceptual review. Human Resource Development Review, 9(3), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310371449.
Lievens, A., & Moenaert, R. K. (2000). Project team communication in financial service innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 37(5), 733–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00201.
Litchfield, R. C., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z., Gumusluoglu, L., Carter, M., & Hirst, G. (2018). When team identity helps innovation and when it hurts: Team identity and its relationship to team and cross-team innovative behavior. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(3), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12410.
Lowik, S., Kraaijenbrink, J., & Groen, A. (2016). The team absorptive capacity triad: A configurational study of individual, enabling, and motivating factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(5), 1083–1103. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2015-0433.
Luciano, M. M., Bartels, A. L., D’Innocenzo, L., Maynard, M. T., & Mathieu, J. E. (2018). Shared team experiences and team effectiveness: Unpacking the contingent effects of entrained rhythms and task characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1403–1430. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0828.
Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.15993111.
Mangematin, V., O’Reilly, P., & Cunningham, J. (2014). PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9270-y.
Markus, B., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). Curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963–970.
Marrone, J. A. (2010). Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36(4), 911–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309353945.
Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1423–1439. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28225967.
Meyer, M., & Kearnes, M. (2013). Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and the market. Science and Public Policy, 40(4), 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct051.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.04.003.
Oehler, P. J., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. M. (2018). Never change a winning routine? How performance feedback affects routine change. Industrial and Corporate Change. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty049.
Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000006.
Prud’homme, D., von Zedtwitz, M., Thraen, J. J., & Bader, M. . (2018). “Forced technology transfer” policies: Workings in China and strategic implications. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 134, 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.022.
Schotter, A. P. J., Mudambi, R., Doz, Y. L., & Gaur, A. (2017). Boundary spanning in global organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 54(4), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12256.
Sharfman, M. P., & Dean, J. W. (1991). Conceptualizing and measuring the organizational environment: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Management, 17(4), 681–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700403.
Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grm036.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Liebowitz, S. J., & Lackman, C. L. (2012). Determinants of new product development team performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00940.x.
Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015659.
Taheri, M., & van Geenhuizen, M. (2016). Teams’ boundary-spanning capacity at university: Performance of technology projects in commercialization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.003.
Tsai, W. (2000). Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(9), 925–939. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200009)21:9<925::AID-SMJ129>3.0.CO;2-I.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.
Tziner, A. (1985). How team composition affects task performance: Some theoretical insights. Psychological Reports, 57(3_suppl), 1111–1119. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985.57.3f.1111.
Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292938.
Wang, Y., Han, M. S., Xiang, D., & Hampson, D. P. (2018). The double-edged effects of perceived knowledge hiding: Empirical evidence from the sales context. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2018-0245.
Workman, M. (2005). Virtual team culture and the amplification of team boundary permeability on performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(4), 435–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1149.
Wu, W. (2010). Managing and incentivizing research commercialization in Chinese Universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9116-4.
Zhang, C., Wu, F., & Henke, J. W. (2015). Leveraging boundary spanning capabilities to encourage supplier investment: A comparative study. Industrial Marketing Management, 49, 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.04.012.
Zhao, Z. J., & Anand, J. (2013). Beyond boundary spanners: The ‘collective bridge’ as an efficient interunit structure for transferring collective knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 34(13), 1513–1530. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2080.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Team boundary-spanning activity measurement scale—Source: Adapted from Ancona and Caldwell (1992a)
TB1 | Absorb outside pressures for the team so it can work free of interference |
TB2 | Protect the team from outside interference |
TB3 | Teams often reject too many requests from outsiders |
TB4 | Persuade other individuals that the team's activities are important |
TB5 | Scan the environment inside your organization for threats to the product team |
TB6 | Team show its image to the outside world |
TB7 | Persuade others to support the team's decisions |
TB8 | Acquire resources (e, g., money, new members, equipment) for the team |
TB9 | Report the progress of the team to a higher organizational level |
TB10 | Find out whether others in the company support or oppose your team's activities |
TB11 | Find out information on your company's strategy or political situation that may affect the project |
TB12 | Keep other groups in the company informed of your team's activities |
TB13 | Resolve design problems with external groups |
TB14 | Coordinate activities with external groups |
TB15 | Procure things which the team needs from other groups or individuals in the company |
TB16 | Negotiate with others for delivery deadlines |
TB17 | Review product design with outsiders |
TB18 | Find out what competing firms or groups are doing on similar projects |
TB19 | Scan the environment inside or outside the organization for marketing ideas/expertise |
TB20 | Collect technical information/ideas from individuals outside of the team |
TB21 | Scan the environment inside or outside the organization for technical ideas/expertise |
TB22 | Keep news about the team secret from others in the company until the appropriate time |
TB23 | Avoid releasing information to others in the company to protect the team's image or product it is working on |
TB24 | Control the release of information from the team in an effort to present the profile we want to show |
Task dependence research scale—Source: Adapted from Campion et al. (1993)
TD1 | I cannot accomplish my task without information or materials from other members of my team |
TD2 | Other members of my team depend on me for information or materials needed to perform their tasks |
TD3 | Without my team, jobs performed by team members are related to one another |
Task complexity research scale—Source: Adapted from Jehn (1995)
TF1 | The task contains many uncertain factories |
TF2 | The main job is to solve complex problems |
TF3 | It is difficult to routinize the work |
TF4 | It requires a lot of information or alternatives |
TF5 | It includes many different elements |
Task time pressure measurement scale—Source: Adapted from Brown and Miller (2000)
TT1 | The time limit for technology transfer projects is urgent |
TT2 | Members of the technology transfer team face a lot of work |
TT3 | Members of the technology transfer team have no time to do other things |
TT4 | Members of the technology transfer team always feel that time is too little |
Team efficacy measurement scale—Source: Adapted from Guzzo et al. (1993)
TE1 | This team has confidence in itself |
TE2 | This team believes it can become unusually good at producing high-quality work |
TE3 | This team expects to be known as a high-performing team |
TE4 | This team feels it can solve any problem it encounters |
TE5 | This team believes it can be very productive |
TE6 | This team can get a lot done when it works hard |
TE7 | The team's work efficiency is high |
TE8 | This team expects to have a lot of influence around here |
Team communication measurement scale—Source: Adapted from Hirst and Mann (2004)
TC1 | Team members have a clear understanding of project objectives |
TC2 | Project objectives are understood by all members |
TC3 | There is a lack of clarity concerning project priorities |
TC4 | Project objectives are clearly communicated to all members |
TC5 | The team receives clear feedback regarding the project’s performance |
TC6 | Team members receive clear feedback regarding the quality of project work |
TC7 | Project information is shared across the team and is accessible to all |
TC8 | It is often difficult to get answers to important questions about my work |
TC9 | Team members have access to all the information required to do their work effectively |
TC10 | Team members have a clear understanding of the expectations of customer/funding agencies |
TC11 | The team discusses project objectives with customer/funding agencies |
TC12 | Customer/funding agencies provide clear directions concerning desired project outcomes |
TC13 | The team receives frequent feedback from customer/funding agencies |
Environmental uncertainty measurement scale—Source: Adapted from Justin Tan and Litsschert (1994)
EU1 | Environmental changes in our local market are intense |
EU2 | Our clients regularly ask for new products and services |
EU3 | In our local market, changes are taking place continuously |
EU4 | In a year, nothing has changed in our market |
EU5 | The demand of technology demanders is largely influenced by non-market factors such as social culture, political factors, social events and policy orientation |
EU6 | Technological standards of technology suppliers are largely influenced by factors such as social culture and government policies |
EU7 | Our organizational unit has relatively strong competitors |
EU8 | Competition in our local market is extremely high |
EU9 | Price competition is a hallmark of our local market |
EU10 | Clients’ requirements are getting higher and higher |
EU11 | The competition between teams is becoming more and more intense |
EU12 | Competitors’ behaviors become more and more various |
EU13 | It is more and more difficult to obtain resources |
Performance of technology transfer team—Source: Adapted from Müller and Turner (2007)
TP1 | End-user satisfaction with the project's product or service |
TP2 | Suppliers' satisfaction |
TP3 | Project team's satisfaction |
TP4 | Other stakeholders' satisfaction |
TP5 | Technology transfer fails to achieve its overall performance (function, budget, etc.) |
TP6 | Meeting user requirements |
TP7 | Transferred technology failed to achieve its intended technical performance |
TP8 | Reoccurring business with the client |
TP9 | Meeting the respondent's self-defined success factor |
TP10 | Meeting the project's purpose |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kaiji, X., Crupi, A., Di Minin, A. et al. Team boundary-spanning activities and performance of technology transfer organizations: evidence from China. J Technol Transf 47, 33–62 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09843-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09843-8