The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 153–179 | Cite as

R&D Venture: proposition of a technology transfer concept for breakthrough technologies with R&D cooperation: A case study in the energy sector

  • Stephan Hess
  • Roland Yves Siegwart


At times when the market demands strong active innovation, large industrial corporations with established R&D organizations benefit from screening and developing breakthrough innovation. The ability of established organizations to absorb for future technologies is a key to successfully recognize, explore and capture breakthrough innovations. R&D Venturing is a practical way of bringing about technology transfer and exploration of future technologies through R&D cooperation, which is described in this paper by a multiple case study in the energy sector. Existing literature has been reviewed and an R&D Venturing concept will be suggested with a number of propositions for implementation. The results of the case study strongly support that different perspectives of the concept from industry, academia and the ventures themselves have to be carefully understood. Based on the results of the case study, a conceptual framework and propositions for a successful implementation have been derived. A critical discussion of the R&D Venturing concept shows the need for further empirical investigation.


R&D management Technology transfer Innovation management Breakthrough technologies Technology life cycle management Corporate venturing 

JEL Classification

O31 O32 O33 L2 L3 L64 L97 



The authors acknowledge the valuable support and open access to information by all players in the R&D Ventures, academia and the industry. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of ETH Zürich and the industry partner.


  1. Adams, J. D. (2005). Industrial R&D Laboratories: Windows on black boxes. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 129–137.Google Scholar
  2. Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 521–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, M., & Lööf, H. (2011). Small business innovation: Firm level evidence from Sweden. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9216-9.Google Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D., et al. (2002). The economics of science and technology. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 155–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barringer, B., & Bluedorn, C. (1999). The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.003.Google Scholar
  7. Bjørnali, E., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2010). Exploring board formation and evolution of board composition in academic spin-offs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 92–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bojanowski, M., Corten, R., & Westbrock, B. (2011). The structure and dynamics of the global network of inter-firm R&D partnerships 1989–2002. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9234-7.Google Scholar
  9. Bonardo, D., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2010). The M&A dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 141–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent`s course? Incumbent, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation. Boston, Massachusetts: Havard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  12. Christensen, C. (2003). The innovator`s dilemma. New York: Harper Business Essentials Edition.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colombo, M., D’Adda, D., & Piva, E. (2010). The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colombo, M., Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2009). Dynamic of science-based entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Di Guardo, M. C., & Harrigan, K. R. (2011). Mapping research on strategic alliances and innovation: A co-citation analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9239-2.Google Scholar
  18. Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organizational design: Strategies and implementation (Vol. 1, pp. 167–188). New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  19. Dushnitsky, G., & Lenox, M. (2005a). When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures? Corporate venture capital and investing firm innovation rates. Research Policy, 34, 615–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dushnitsky, G., & Lenox, M. (2005b). When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 26, 947–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eisenhardt, K., & Graebner, M. (2007). Theory building from cases, opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferrary, M. (2008). Strategic spin off: A new incentive contract for managing R&D researchers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 600–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Festel, G. (2009). Kommerzialisierung neuer Technologien durch gezielte start up Gründung, Das Founding Angles Geschäftsmodel. Zürich: Dissertation, Eidgenoessische Technische Hochschule.Google Scholar
  24. Festel, G., & Boutellier, R. (2009). Corporate FuE spin offs zur Steigerung der Innovationsfähigkeit. Wissenschaftsmanagement.Google Scholar
  25. Foster, R. (1987). Innovation: The attackers advantage. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
  26. Galbraith, C., Ehrlich, S., & DeNoble, A. (2006). Predicting technology success: Identifying key predictors and accessing expert evaluation for advanced technologies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 673–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greenwood, D., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Barriers inhibiting from partnering with universities: Evidence from the advanced technology program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Henderson, R. (1993). Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. RAND Journal of Economics, 24(2), 248–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hussinger, K. (2010). Absorptive capacity and post-acquisition inventor Productivity. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-010-9199-y.Google Scholar
  31. Kanter, R. (1985). Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kathoefer, D. G., & Leker, J. (2010). Knowledge transfer in academia: An exploratory study on the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-010-9204-5.Google Scholar
  33. Katz, R., & Allen, T. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here Syndrome: A look at the performance tenure and communication pattern of 50 R&D Project Groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liang, H., & Zhang, Z. (2011). The effects of industry characteristics on the sources of technological product and process innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9206-y.Google Scholar
  36. Marmer, M., Herrmann, B., & Berman, R. (2011). Startup genome report 01, cracking the code of innovation. Stanford: University Report.Google Scholar
  37. Masterplan Cleantech Schweiz (2010). Bern: Eidgenössisches Volkswirtschaftsdepartement EVD.Google Scholar
  38. Meyer, M. (2006). Academic inventiveness and entrepreneurship: On the importance of start-up companies in commercializing academic patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 501–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Michl, T., Gold, B., & Picot, A. (2010). Managing strategic ambidexterity: The spin along approach, CINet (pp. 750–763).Google Scholar
  40. Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis, Research Policy, 1697, 1–19.Google Scholar
  41. Morandi, V. (2011). The management of industry–university joint research projects: How do partners coordinate and control R&D activities? Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9228-5.Google Scholar
  42. Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., & Martin, B. (2010). Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed? Discussion. Research Policy, 39, 1011–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialize new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schilling, E., & Esmundo, M. (2009). Technology S-curve in renewable energy alternatives: Analysis and implications for industry and government. Energy Policy, 37, 1767–1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Siegel, D., & Wessner, C. (2010). Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the small business innovation research program. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-010-9186-3.Google Scholar
  46. Siegel, D., et al. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfer from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Pergamon, 14, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Siegel, D., et al. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sohn, S. Y., & Lee, M. (2011). Conjoint analysis of R&D contract agreements for industry-funded university research. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9220-0.Google Scholar
  49. Sood, A., & Tellis, G. (2005). Technological evolution and radical innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69, 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suarez, F., & Lanzolla, G. (2007). The role of environmental dynamics in building a first mover advantage theory. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 377–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tornatzky, L., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The process of technology innovation. Massachusetts: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  52. Tripsas, M. (2007). Customer preference discontinuities: A trigger for radical technological change. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29, 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Woerter, M. (2011). Technology proximity between firms and universities and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9207-x.Google Scholar
  54. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Locket, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  55. Yin, R. (2009). Case study action research, applied social research methods series (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ)ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations