Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The human resource dimension of science-based technology transfer: lessons from Russian RTOs and innovative enterprises

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study addresses ‘science-based’ technology transfer by research and technology organizations (RTO) whose mission is to combine intramural R&D and technology extension for industrial application. The paper is based on a unique database of Russian RTOs relating their science-based activity to technology transfer performance, on the one hand, and the contribution of R&D personnel sourced from universities to R&D output, on the other. The outcomes suggest a positive relationship between RTO scientific publication and technology transfer activity. Moreover, science-based outputs are contributed mostly by researchers coming to RTOs from academia. Such results are important to countries like Russia with many RTOs that play an important intermediary role between science and technological innovation. The study offers more fine-grained results regarding the differential impact of various types of academic personnel inflows in public versus private RTOs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ankrah, S. N., Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P., & Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33(2–3), 50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, E., Rush, H., Bessant, J., & Hobday, M. (1998). Strategic planning in research and technology institutes. R&D Management, 28(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33, 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego, A. (2011). The impact of research and technology organizations on firm competitiveness: Measurement and determinants. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37, 1837–1853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R. N. A., Gilsing, V. A., & van der Steen, M. (2006). Determining factors of the effectiveness of IP-based spin-offs: Comparing the Netherlands and the US. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 545–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, M., & Hofer, R. (2011). The internationalisation of research and technology organisations (RTOs): Conceptual notions and illustrative examples from European RTOs in China. Science Technology and Society, 16(1), 99–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 661–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonardo, D., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2010). The M&A dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 141–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Rimes, H., & Youtie, J. (2015). The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy, 44, 34–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., & Catalini, C. (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks. Research Policy, 39, 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calderini, M., Franzoni, C., & Vezzulli, A. (2007). If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Research Policy, 36, 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, J., & Patel, P. (2003). University-industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends. Science and Public Policy, 30(2), 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, X., Chen, Q., & Fong, P. S. W. (2016). Scientific disclosure and commercialization mode selection for university technology transfer. Science and Public Policy, 43, 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, H. D., Lee, B. H., Sung, T. K., & Kim, S. V. (2011). Assessing the institutional legitimacy of research and technology organisations in South Korea: A content analysis approach. Science Technology and Society, 16(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coriat, B., Orsi, F., & Weinstein, O. (2003). Does biotech reflect a new science-based innovation regime? Industry and Innovation, 10(3), 231–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespi, G., D’Este, P., Fontana, R., & Geuna, A. (2011). The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Research Policy, 40, 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signaling. Research Policy, 35(2), 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geoghegan, W., O’Kane, C., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). Technology transfer offices as a nexus within the triple helix: The progression of the university’s role. International Journal of Technology Management, 68(3–4), 255–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V. A., Bekkers, R. N. A., de Araújo, Bodas, Freitas, I. M., & van der Steen, M. (2011). Differences in technology transfer between science-based and development-based industries: Transfer mechanisms and barriers. Technovation, 31(12), 638–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V. A., Burg, E., & van Romme, A. G. L. (2010). Policy principles for the creation and success of corporate and academic spin-offs. Technovation, 30(1), 12–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L. (2003). Russia: A new innovation system for the new economy. In A background material for a presentation at the First Globelics Conference “Innovation Systems and Development Strategies for the Third Millennium”, Rio de Janeiro, November 2–6, 2003. Moscow: Higher School of Economics.

  • Gokhberg, L., & Kuznetsova, T. (2010). Russian Federation. In UNESCO. UNESCO science report: The current status of science around the world (pp. 215–233). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

  • Gokhberg, L., & Kuznetsova, T. (2015). Russian Federation. In UNESCO. UNESCO science report: towards 2030 (pp. 343–363). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

  • Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2013). Formal and informal knowledge and technology transfer from academia to industry: Complementarity effects and innovation performance. Industry and Innovation, 20(8), 683–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hales, M. (2001). Birds were dinosaurs once: The diversity and evolution of research and technology organisations. A final report of RISE: RTOs in the service economy: Knowledge infrastructures, innovation intermediaries and institutional change. Brighton: CENTRIM.

  • HSE. (2015). Science and technology indicators in the Russian Federation: Data book. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. A. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36, 680–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38, 947–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33(8), 1201–1215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loikkanen, T., Hyytinen, K., & Konttinen, J. (2011). Public research and technology organisations in transition: The case of Finland. Science Technology and Society, 16(1), 75–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mrinalini, N., & Nath, P. (2008). Knowledge management in research and technology organizations in a globalized era. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 7(1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and university–industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35, 1499–1508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikulainen, T., & Palmberg, C. (2010). Transferring science-based technologies to industry: Does nanotechnology make a difference? Technovation, 30(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development, the measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peneder, M. (2008). The problem of private under-investment in innovation: A policy mind map. Technovation, 28(8), 518–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poti, B., & Reale, E. (2000). Convergence and differentiation in institutional change among European public research systems: The decreasing role of public research institutes. Science and Public Policy, 27(6), 421–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, B. (2004). After the reforms: How have public science research organizations changed? R&D Management, 34(3), 253–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37(6–7), 1079–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurner, T. W., & Zaichenko, S. (2015). Knowledge inputs to science- and development-based regimes: Evidence from the behaviour of Russian RTOs. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(1), 1550003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31, 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weckowska, D. M. (2015). Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation, 41–42, 62–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westfall, C. (2012). Institutional persistence and the material transformation of the US national labs: The curious story of the advent of the Advanced Photon Source. Science and Public Policy, 39(4), 439–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, R. C. (2000). Management of scientific institutions NPL 1995–98: The transition from agency to government-owned contractor operated (GOCO). R&D Management, 30(4), 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y., Welch, E. W., & Huang, W.-L. (2015). Commercialization of university inventions: Individual and institutional factors affecting licensing of university patents. Technovation, 36–37, 12–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. (2009). Why do some US universities generate more venture-backed academic entrepreneurs than others? Venture Capital, 11(2), 133–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The article 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 a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’. Special thanks are due to the editor and the reviewers for their kind assistance in improving of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Research University Higher School of Economics, Myasnitskaya st., 20, Moscow, Russian Federation, 101000

    Stanislav Zaichenko

Authors
  1. Stanislav Zaichenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stanislav Zaichenko.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zaichenko, S. The human resource dimension of science-based technology transfer: lessons from Russian RTOs and innovative enterprises. J Technol Transf 43, 368–388 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9567-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9567-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation