Technology commercialization in entrepreneurial universities: the US and Russian experience
- 1k Downloads
US universities are leading the way in technology commercialization, while universities in Russia lag far behind. This paper discusses the best American practices, as well as the main issues of technology commercialization at the US universities. As an example, we consider the experience of the University of Maryland, College Park. In the next section, we turn to technology commercialization in Russia, where it struggles for several reasons. In this paper, we propose that Russia can improve its technology commercialization by studying the example of the leading US entrepreneurial universities and implementing proper procedures. And the important overarching point is that Russian universities need to improve their collaboration with industry, and they need to develop new standards of administrative, research, and business activity that will promote innovation and entrepreneurship.
KeywordsTechnology innovation Technology entrepreneurship Technology transfer and commercialization Entrepreneurial university
JEL ClassificationO31 O32
Research presented in this paper was conducted with support from the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), and the US Russia Foundation for Economic Advancement and the Rule of Law (USRF). The authors thank Dr. Kai Duh for his help in the organization of the research project at the University of Maryland. Also thanks to Paul Dudenhefer for editing this paper and anonymous reviewers for their recommendations regarding the paper improvements.
- American Councils for International Education. (2014). Advancing research universities and russia in the innovation economy. Draft White Paper.Google Scholar
- Bremer, H. W. (1998). University technology transfer: Evolution and revolution. Council on Government Relations.Google Scholar
- Carayannis, E., Dubina, I., & Ilinova, A. (2014). Licensing in the context of entrepreneurial university activity: An empirical evidence and a theoretical model. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13132-014-0234-3
- Panagopoulos, A., & Carayannis, E. (2011). A policy for enhancing the disclosure of university faculty invention. Journal of Technology Transfer, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10961-011-9244-5
- Schoonmaker, M., Carayannis, E., & Rau, P. (2012). The role of marketing activities in the fuzzy front end of innovation: a study of the biotech industry. Journal of Technology Transfer, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10961-012-9296-1
- Speser, P. L. (2006). The art and science of technology transfer. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Tieckelman, R., Kordal, R. & Sanga, A. (2010). AUTM Licensing Activity Survey FY2008: Survey Summary. Deerfield, Ill.: Association of University Technology Managers.Google Scholar