Advertisement

Value Generation from Industry-Science Linkages in Light of Targeted Open Innovation

  • Dirk Meissner
  • Elias Carayannis
Chapter
Part of the Science, Technology and Innovation Studies book series (STAIS)

Abstract

The chapter provides a substantial overview of features and channels of knowledge and technology transfer in light of achieving impact from science and research. A taxonomy of transfer channels is proved and levels of impact from science and technology on innovation is proposed. It’s found that there are different levels of value generated from STI, each featuring different stakeholders with different agendas and expectations. The authors argue that to make knowledge and technology transfer impactful and sustainable a long term and holistic view and approach is required. Against most literature about technology and knowledge transfer this work presents an overarching overview of objects, channels and features of partners involved in transfer. It features technology and knowledge transfer from a holistic perspective and provides useful background for future empiric studies and impact assessments.

Keywords

Open innovation Technology transfer Knowledge transfer Public research 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The book chapter was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of the subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program.

References

  1. Abbate T, Coppolino R, Schiavone FJ (2013) Linking entities in knowledge transfer: the innovation intermediaries. Knowl Econ 4:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfaki IMA (2016) Assessment and dynamic modeling of the size of technology transfer. J Knowl Econ 7(2):600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barge-Gil A, Modrego-Rico AJ (2013) Relationships among technology institutes and firms: are determining factors dependent on the type of service provided? J Knowl Econ 4(4):343–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianchi M, Cavaliere A, Chiaroni D, Frattini F, Chiesa V (2011) Organisational modes for open innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry: an exploratory analysis. Technovation 31(2011):22–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carayannis E, Grigoroudis E (2016) Quadruple innovation helix and smart specialization: knowledge production and national competitiveness. Foresight STI Gov 10(1):31–42.  https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459x.2016.1.31.42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carayannis EG, Meissner D, Edelkina A (2017) Targeted innovation policy and practice intelligence (TIP2E): concepts and implications for theory, policy and practice. J Technol Transf 42(3):460–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cervantes M, Meissner D (2014) Commercialising public research under the open innovation model: new trends. Foresight-Russia 8(3):70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiaroni D, Chiesa V, Frattini F (2011) The open innovation journey: how firms dynamically implement the emerging innovation management paradigm. Technovation 31:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Este P, Patel P (2007) University–industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Res Policy 36(9):1295–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahlandera L, Gann DM (2010) How open is innovation? Res Policy 39(2010):699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Del Giudice M, Della Peruta MR, Maggioni (2013) The ‘right’ knowledge and spin-off processes: an empirical analysis on knowledge transfer. Knowl Econ 4(3):304–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Döring T, Schnellenbach J (2004) What do we know about geographical knowledge spillovers and regional growth?—a survey of the literature. Deutsche Bank Research, Research notes, Working paper series, No. 14, 12 Oct 2004Google Scholar
  13. Doz Y, Santos J, Wiliamson P (2004) Is your innovation process global? INSEAD working paper series 2004/09/SMGoogle Scholar
  14. Fallick B, Fleischman CA, Rebitzer JB (2004) Job-hopping in silicon valley: the micro-foundations of a high technology cluster. The National Bureau of Economic Research, 6/14/2004Google Scholar
  15. Fritsch M, Franke (2004) Innovation, regional knowledge spillovers and R&D cooperation. Res Policy 33:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geuna A, Nesta L (2006) University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence. Res Policy 35(6):790–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson D, Butler J (2013) Research Universities in the framework of regional innovation ecosystem: the case of Austin, Texas. Foresight-Russia 7(2):42–57 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  18. Gnidchenko А, Mogilat А, Mikheeva О, Salnikov V (2016) Foreign technology transfer: an assessment of Russia’s economic dependence on high-tech imports. Foresight STI Gov 10(1):53–67.  https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459x.2016.1.53.67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gokhberg M, Meissner D, Shamtko N (2017) Myths and realities of highly qualified labor and what it means for PhDs. J Knowl Econ 8(2):758–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gulbrandsen M, Smeby J-C (2005) Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Res Policy 34(6):932–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gururajan V, Fink D (2010) Attitudes towards knowledge transfer in an environment to perform. J Knowl Manag 14(6):828–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huizingh EKRE (2011) Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives. Technovation 31:2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hutzschenreuter T, Horstkotte J (2010) Knowledge transfer to partners: a firm level perspective. J Knowl Manag 14(3):428–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kauppila O, Mursula A, Harkonen J, Kujala J (2015) Evaluating university–industry collaboration: the European Foundation of Quality Management excellence model-based evaluation of university–industry collaboration. Tert Educ Manag 21(3):229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kindras A, Meissner D, Vishnevskiy K (2014) Regional foresight for bridging national science, technology, and innovation with company innovation: experiences from Russia. J Knowl Econ:1–22Google Scholar
  26. Koch A (2011) Firm-internal knowledge integration and the effects on innovation. J Knowl Manag 15(6):984–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kodama T (2008) The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university–industry linkages—an empirical study of TAMA in Japan. Res Policy 37(8):1224–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krylova KO, Dusya V, Crossan M (2016) Knowledge transfer in knowledge-intensive organizations: the crucial role of improvisation in transferring and protecting knowledge. J Knowl Manag 20(5):1045–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lind F, Styhre A, Aaboen L (2013) Exploring university-industry collaboration in research centres. Eur J Innov Manag 16(1):70–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meissner D (2001) Wissens-und Technologietransfer in nationalen Innovationssystemen. Dissertation TU Dresden. Available online http://d-nb.info/966110498, urn:nbn:de:swb:14-1038998077484-67251
  31. Meissner D, Sultanian E (2007) Wissens-und Technologietransfer: Grundlagen und Diskussion von Studien und Beispielen. CEST, Zentrum für Wissenschafts-und Technologiestudien, BernGoogle Scholar
  32. Meissner D, Zaichenko S (2012) Regional balance of technology transfer and innovation in transitional economy: empirical evidence from Russia. Int J Transit Innov Syst 2(1):38–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mora Valentin EM (2002) Co-operative relationships: a theoretical review of co-operative relationships between firms and universities. Sci Public Policy 29(1):37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. OECD (2002) Benchmarking industry-science relationships. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  35. OECD (2003) Turning science into business. Patenting and licensing at Public Research Organisations. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  36. Perkmann M, Tartari V, McKelvey M, Autio E, Broström A, D’Este P, Krabel S (2013) Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Res Policy 42(2):423–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Plewa C, Korff N, Johnson C, Macpherson G, Baaken T, Rampersad GC (2013) The evolution of university–industry linkages—a framework. J Eng Technol Manage 30(1):21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramos-Vielba I, Fernández-Esquinas M (2012) Beneath the tip of the iceberg: exploring the multiple forms of university–industry linkages. High Educ 64(2):237–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sarpong D, AbdRazak A, Alexander E, Meissner D (2015) Organizing practices of university, industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid triple helix model of innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Chang, in print.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.032
  40. Schartinger D, Schibany A, Gassler H (2001) Interactive relations between university and industry: empirical evidence for Austria. J Technol Transf 26(3):255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simmie J (2003) Innovation and urban regions as national and international nodes for the transfer and sharing of knowledge. Reg Stud 37(6–7):607–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spithoven A, Clarysse B, Knockaert M (2010) Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation 30(2010):130–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  2. 2.The George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations