Advertisement

Entrepreneurial University and Its Engagement in the Triple Helix System: Roadmapping to Leading Innovation on Early Stage: The Technology Transfer Office Whole

  • Aline A. PeriniEmail author
  • Cassiane R. Jaroszewski
  • Adriana B. V. B. Magalhães
  • Letícia H. Ferreira
  • Iraídes Ramalho
  • Anderson Z. Freitas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 43)

Abstract

This paper presents as main contribution the standardization of complex areas in the development and empirical demonstration of a managerial roadmap tool applied to the TTO (Technological Transfer Office) scenario, which primary role is to anticipate trends in technological and innovative skills at the level of firm to meet the demands from smart cities solutions, among University engagement and Industry. Implementing roadmapping on early stage in innovation provides convergence in key-technologies at the Nuclear an Energy Research Institute, addressing structural, regional, institutional role in Intellectual Property and complementarities to development market front-to-end through chains in health, environment, food, agriculture, energy, chemistry, education, entertainment and arts in the context of the knowledge economy.

Keywords

Innovation convergence Market orientation Capital intellectual Property polices disclosure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The activity presented in the paper is part of the applied research grant.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen R, Srivam R (2000) The role of standards in innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Change 64(2–3):171–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(99)00104-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amati M, Freestone R, Robertson S (2016) Learning the city: Patrick Geddes, exhibitions, and communicating planning ideas. Landscape Urban Plann 166:97–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ayhan A, Serhat B, Ozcan S, Serhat C (2017) A nanotechnology roadmapping study for the Turkish defense industry. Foresight 19(4):354–375.  https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-06-2017-0020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bateman TS, Sneel SA (1998) Administração management: construindo vantagem competitive. Atlas, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batty M, Marshall S (2009) Centenary paper: the evolution of cities: Geddes, Abercrombie and the new physicalism. Town Plann Rev 80(6):551–574.  https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2009.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blind K, Gauch S (2009) Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: evidence from Germany. J Technol Transf 34(3):320–342.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-008-9089-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    BRASIL (2018) Decreto-lei Nº 9.283, de 7 de fevereiro de 2018. Estabelecer medidas de in-centivo à inovação e à pesquisa científica e tecnológica no ambiente produtivo, com vistas capacitação tecnológica, ao alcance da autonomia tecnológica e ao desenvolvimento do sistema produtivo nacional e regionalGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    BRASIL (2004) Lei nº 10.973, de 2 de dezembro de 2004. Dispõe sobre incentivos à inovação e à pesquisa científica e tecnológica no ambiente produtivo e dá outras providênciasGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    BRASIL (2016) Lei nº 13.243, de 11 de janeiro de 2016. Dispõe sobre estímulos ao desenvolvimento científico, à pesquisa, à capacitação científica e tecnológica e à inovação e altera a Lei no 10.973Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bubela TM, Caulfield T (2010) Role and reality: technology transfer at Canadian universities. Trends Biotechnol 28:447–451.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2010.06.002. Accessed Apr 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calabresi G (1983) Thoughts on the future of economics. J Legal Educ 33(2):359–364Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Campomar MC (1982) As atividades de marketing em instituições de pesquisa tecnológica governamentais. Revista de Administração IA FEA-USP, pp 61–77Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carayannis E, Grigoroudis E (2016) Quadruple innovation helix and smart specialization: knowledge prodution and national competitiveness. Foresight and STI Governance 10:31–42.  https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459x.2016.1.31.42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chesbrough H (2007) Business model innovation: it’s not just about technology anymore. Strat Leadersh 35(6):12–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    CNEN (2018) Comissão Nacional de Energia Nuclear. Available in http://www.cnen.gov.br/. Accessed Apr 2018
  16. 16.
    Cooper DR, Schilndler PS (2003) Métodos de pesquisa de administração. Tradução Luciana de Oliveira Rocha. Bookman, Porto AlegreGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics os innovation: from national system and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy 19:109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Etzkowitz H, Zhou C (2017) Hélice Tríplice: inovação e empreendedorismo universidade-indústria-governo. Estudos Avançados 31(90)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fama EF (1969) Efficient capital markets: a review of theory and empirical work. J Finan 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gereffi G (1994) Capitalism development and global commodity chains. In: Sklair L (ed) Capitalism and development. Routledge, London.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000169939704000206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gupta S, Lehmann DR, Stuart JA (2004) Valuing customers. J Mark Res 41(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gupta S, Lehmann DR (2003) Customers as assets. J Interact Mark 17(1):9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ho J-Y, O’Sullivan E (2017) Strategic standardization of smart systems: a roadmapping process in support of innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Change 115:301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (2016) Available in https://www.iaea.org/node/18639. Accessed Nov 2016
  25. 25.
    IPEN (Instituto de Pesquisa Energéticas Nucleares) (2018) Available in https://www.ipen.br/por-tal_por/portal/default.php. Accessed Apr 2018
  26. 26.
    Kaplan SR, Norton PD (2003) Strategy maps: converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business Review PressGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kumar V, Petersen JA (2005) Using a customer-level marketing strategy to enhance firm performance: a review of theoretical and empirical evidence. J Acad Mark Sci 33(4):504–519.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305275857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lazega E, Quintane E, Casenaz S (2017) Collegial oligarchy networks of normative alignments in transnational institution building. Soc Netw 48:10–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    MCTIC (Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações) (2016) Plano de Estratégia NacionalGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    OECD (2018) Manual de Oslo, 4th edn. Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation: the measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities. Available in http://www.oecd.org/science/oslo-manual-2018-9789264304604-en.htm,  https://doi.org/10.1787/25186167. Accessed Nov 2018
  31. 31.
    Perini AA (2010) Avaliação Econômica de Clientes: um estudo exploratório sobre modelos na prática e a capacidade de geração de valor para a empresa e/ou acionistas. Dissertação (Mestrado em Administração de Organizações) Faculdade de Economia e Administração de Ribeirão Preto. Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, 2010. Available in http://www.te-ses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/96/96132/tde-10122010-163331/pt-br.php. Accessed Nov 2018
  32. 32.
    Pindyck RS, Rubinfeld DL (2002) Microeconomia, 5º. Edição, Tradução Eleutério Prado. Prentice Hall, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prahalad CK, Hamel G (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Bus Rev 3(68):79–93Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rocco M (2007) Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. J Nanopart Res 10:11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rust RT, Ambler T, Carpenter GS, Kumar V, Srivastava RK (2001) Measuring marketing productivity: current knowledge and future directions. J Mark 68(4):76–89.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.76.42721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schumpeter, JA (1942) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. University of Illinois at Urbana—Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496200Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Srivastava RK, Shervani TA, Fahey L (1998) Market-based assets and shareholder value: a framework for analysis. J Mark 62(1):2–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sveiby K-E (2007) Methods for measuring intangible assets. Available in http://www.sveiby.com/articles/IntangibleMethods.htm. Accessed Apr 2018
  39. 39.
    USP (Universidade de São Paulo) (2018) Available in http://www5.usp.br/. Accessed Apr 2018
  40. 40.
    Suzigan W (1989) .Coord. Reestruturação industrial e competitividade internacional. Revista SEADE. Coleção Economia Paulista, pp 411Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aline A. Perini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cassiane R. Jaroszewski
    • 2
  • Adriana B. V. B. Magalhães
    • 2
  • Letícia H. Ferreira
    • 2
  • Iraídes Ramalho
    • 2
  • Anderson Z. Freitas
    • 2
  1. 1.Technology Transference Office of Nuclear and Energy Research InstituteSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Nuclear and Energy Research InstituteSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations