Determinants of the university technology transfer policy-mix: a cross-national analysis of gap-funding instruments

Governmental Support Options for the Technology Transfer of Deep Tech Innovations

In recent years, systemic and society-changing technological innovations (Deep Tech or DT innovations) have emerged primarily in the USA and Asia, while Europe is technologically dependent in many application fields. The development of DT is characterised by high financial capital needs. Additionally, intellectual property (IP) management plays a major role. To reduce the technological dependency for many areas in Europe, an adjustment of the government’s role as an actor in the innovation system appears beneficial. Targeted measures can improve the development and transfer of DT and, thus, contribute to securing long-term competitiveness of European nations. The aim of this contribution is therefore to identify support options within the technology transfer of DT innovations by conducting a structured literature analysis. In total, 27 applicable options are identified and structured into derived fields of action within innovation systems.

Spatiotemporal characteristics and influencing factor analysis of universities’ technology transfer level in China: The perspective of innovation ecosystems

Universities are important parts of innovation ecosystems, and university technology transfer (UTT), which aims for the sustainable commercialization of sci-tech achievements, is closely related to other actors in the ecosystem. Based on the panel data of 31 provinces in mainland China, this paper empirically analyzes the spatiotemporal distribution characteristics of UTT levels from 2011 to 2019 and estimates the influencing factors using the spatial Durbin model (SDM) with an economic spatial weighting matrix from the perspective of innovation ecosystems. The results are presented as follows: (1) Although the overall level of UTT in China is low, it shows an upward trend in most provinces. In addition, the interprovincial gap is obvious, forming a ladder distribution of UTT levels increasing from west to east. (2) There is a significant spatial autocorrelation between UTT levels in the provinces. (3) Industry, economy, and informatization play significant roles in promoting UTT, while financial institutes and openness have significant inhibitory effects. The economy has a significant spatial spillover effect on UTT, while government, industry and informatization have a significant inhibitory effect on UTT in neighboring regions. (4) The direct and indirect effects of influencing factors in the Eastern Region and other regions show significant spatial heterogeneity.

Cross-fertilization of knowledge and technologies in collaborative research projects

Purpose

This paper aims to explore how the cross-fertilization of knowledge and technologies in EU-funded research projects, including serious games and gamification, is influenced by the following variables: multidisciplinarity, knowledge base and organizations (number and diversity). The interrelation of actors and projects form a network of innovation. The largest contribution to cross-fertilization comes from the multidisciplinary nature of projects and the previous knowledge and technology of actors. The analysis draws on the understanding of how consortia perform as an innovation network, what their outcomes are and what capabilities are needed to reap value.

Design/methodology/approach

All the research projects including serious games and/or gamification, funded by the EU-Horizon 2020 work programme, have been analyzed to test the hypotheses in this paper. The study sample covers the period between 2014 and 2016 (June), selecting the 87 research projects that comprised 519 organizations as coordinators and participants, and 597 observations – because more organizations participate in more than one project. The data were complemented by documentary and external database analysis.

Findings

To create cross-fertilization of knowledge and technologies, the following emphasis should be placed on projects: partners concern various disciplines; partners have an extensive knowledge base for generating novel combinations and added-value technologies; there is a diverse typology of partners with unique knowledge and skills; and there is a limited number of organizations not too closely connected to provide cross-fertilization.

Research limitations/implications

First, the database sample covers a period of 30 months. The authors’ attention was focused on this period because H2020 prioritized for the first time the serious games and gamification with two specific calls (ICT-21–14 and ICT-24–16) and, second, for the explosion of projects including these technologies in the past years (Adkins, 2017). These facts can be understood as a way to push the research to higher technology readiness levels (TRLs) and introducing the end-user in the co-creation and co-development along the value chain. Second, an additional limitation makes reference to the European focus of the projects, missing strong regional initiatives not identified and studied.

Originality/value

This paper has attempted to explore and define theoretically and empirically the characteristics found in the cross-fertilization of collaborative research projects, emphasizing which variables, and how, need to be stimulated to benefit more multidisciplinary consortia and accelerate the process of innovation.

Models, Processes, and Roles of Universities in Technology Transfer Management: A Systematic Review

Universities play pivotal roles when research findings are to be adopted commercially. Although these roles vary from one country to another, effective patenting and licensing procedures, as well as eventual commercialisation of scholarly inventions, reflect hard work on the part of the University mediating between the researcher and the industry through technology transfer offices (TTOs) in order to ensure that knowledge-developers take motivational and monetary credit for their findings. This paper details some existing models, processes, and roles taken up in some countries where sharing of intellectual property exists, and links it up with aspects of university–industry technology transfer, such as policies surrounding patenting, government investment and marketing, and the process of academic entrepreneurship, among others. 22 articles were found via a systematic review of literature and analysed with respect to four identified areas of focus: internal strategy, investment and market, academic entrepreneurship and policy. Based on models, processes, and roles in reviewed studies, our results indicate that new models for technology transfer mainly stem from the fact that there is no universally accepted model in the literature. Furthermore, management of technology transfer is mostly the responsibility of TTOs in most countries. While university TTOs act as intermediaries to protect the interest of the author/inventor, issues such as poor relationships between universities and industry, as well as funding, remain major challenges in many emerging economies. In contrast, researchers in western economies are mainly challenged by financial motivation and recognition within the academic domains.