Hazlett & Carayannis (1998)Hazlett, J. A., & Carayannis, E. G. (1998). Business-university virtual teaming for strategic planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 57(3), 261-265.
|
0 |
Qualitative |
United States |
Business-university virtual teaming impacts on strategic planning. |
Virtual teaming can develop new decision-making processes to help managers change direction as the environment changes; and do all this in real-time so that the organization can move at the right strategic moment. |
Feldman, Feller, Bercovitz, & Burton (2002)Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105-121.
|
174 |
Mixed |
United States |
Mechanisms available to universities in managing the commercialization of intellectual property. |
University's use of equity is a function of factors related to the university's prior experiences with licensing, success relative to other institutions, and the organization of the technology transfer office, as well as structural characteristics. |
Lockett, Wright, & Franklin (2003)Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small business economics, 20(2), 185-200.
|
237 |
Quantitative |
United Kingdom |
Strategies to promote the creation of spin-out companies. |
The more successful universities have clearer strategies towards the spinning out of companies, the use of surrogate entrepreneurs in this process, and to possess a greater expertise and networks. The role of the academic inventor was not found to differ between the more and less successful universities. |
Van der Berghe & Guild (2008)Van den Berghe, L., & Guild, P. D. (2008). The strategic value of new university technology and its impact on exclusivity of licensing transactions: An empirical study. The Journal of Technology Transfer , 33(1), 91-103.
|
9 |
Quantitative |
Canada |
Perceptions of the strategic value of new university technology and its impact on exclusivity agreements. |
Licensing transactions are secured by exclusivity agreements when the product innovation enabled by the new university technology is new-to-the-firm or new-to-the-market and the firm’s perception of the strategic value of the technologies is high. |
Arvanitis & Woerter (2009)Arvanitis, S., & Woerter, M. (2009). Firms’ transfer strategies with universities and the relationship with firms’ innovation performance. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1067-1106.
|
19 |
Quantitative |
Switzerland |
Impacts of different strategies for KTT on innovation performance. |
Strategies related to the “core” transfer activities such as R&D contracts are stronger correlated with innovation performance compared to strategies related to “softer” transfer forms. |
Andersen & Rossi (2011)Andersen, B., & Rossi, F. (2011). UK universities look beyond the patent policy discourse in their intellectual property strategies. Science and Public Policy, 38(4), 254-268.
|
6 |
Quantitative |
United Kingdom |
Different forms of Intellectual Property transfers, and its effectiveness. |
Proprietary forms of IP are relatively more used in generating financial benefits to universities, while non-proprietary forms of IP are relatively more used in enhancing the flows of knowledge, fostering the innovation processes. |
Wright, Clarysse, & Mosey (2012)Wright, M., Clarysse, B., & Mosey, S. (2012). Strategic entrepreneurship, resource orchestration and growing spin-offs from universities. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management , 24(9), 911-927.
|
21 |
Qualitative |
- |
Resources and competencies selection and orchestration strategies to generate returns from USOs. |
Adequate resource accumulation, the bundling of resources to build competencies and the leveraging of competencies into the market are necessary, but they need to be synchronized with growth strategy to realize sustainable growth of spin-offs. |
Lubik, Garnsey, Minshall, & Platts (2013)Lubik, S., Garnsey, E., Minshall, T., & Platts, K. (2013). Value creation from the innovation environment: partnership strategies in university spin-outs. R&D Management, 43(2), 136-150.
|
19 |
Qualitative |
United Kingdom |
Identify partnerships that are being pursued by those achieving greater than average commercial success. |
Most commercially successful USOs formed alliances with corporate partners, so limiting their dependence on a single partner, in addition to a wide range of organizations including nonparent universities and other USOs. |
Somsuk & Laosirihongthong (2014)Somsuk, N., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2014). A fuzzy AHP to prioritize enabling factors for strategic management of university business incubators: Resource-based view. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 85, 198-210.
|
64 |
Mixed |
Thailand |
Enabling factors influencing the success of university business incubators (UBIs) |
In promoting the success of UBIs, the management team needs to devote their efforts to monitor and manage enabling factors that have the highest priority. Human resources, especially in recruiting and developing managers, should be emphasized first and most. |
Özel & Pénin (2016)Özel, S. Ö., & Pénin, J. (2016). Exclusive or open? An economic analysis of university intellectual property patenting and licensing strategies. Journal of Innovation Economics Management, (3), 133-153.
|
4 |
Theoretical |
- |
Understand the strategy and the performance of the transfer according to the nature of the invention. |
University licensing strategies must be tailored to the context. In some cases, exclusive licensing maximizes social welfare. In other, more open strategies, based on publication, dominate. The university, to maximize its profits, may not always adopt the licensing strategy that maximizes social surplus. |
Soetanto & Jack (2016)Soetanto, D., & Jack, S. (2016). The impact of university-based incubation support on the innovation strategy of academic spin-offs. Technovation , 50, 25-40.
|
47 |
Quantitative |
United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Norway |
Identify how incubation support and innovation strategy can determine the performance of academic spin-offs. |
Incubation support has a positive effect on the performance of spin-offs; a market growth strategy has a positive effect on performance while a product development strategy has little effect on performance. |
Bengtsson (2017)Bengtsson, L. (2017). A comparison of university technology transfer offices’ commercialization strategies in the Scandinavian countries. Science and Public Policy , 44(4), 565-577.
|
9 |
Quantitative |
Denmark, Sweden, and Norway |
Analyze the effects of the introduction of the university ownership technology transfer IPR. |
The use of commercialization strategies, licensing, and spin-offs, is indirectly influenced by the IPR framework, and more directly by the policy intent of the university, the government funding system, the TTOs access to business development resources and competence. |
Aragonés-Beltran, Poveda-Bautista, & Jiménez-Sáez (2017)Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Poveda-Bautista, R., & Jiménez-Sáez, F. (2017). An in-depth analysis of a TTO’s objectives alignment within the university strategy: An ANP-based approach. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 44, 19-43.
|
8 |
Mixed |
Spain |
Analyze to what extent the activities carried out by TTO offices are aligned with the University objectives. |
Development of a decision-making tool that helps TTO managers analyze the effectiveness of TTO activities and their degree of alignment with the institution's objectives. |
De Moortel & Crispeels (2018)De Moortel, K., & Crispeels, T. (2018). International university-university technology transfer: Strategic management framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 145-155.
|
4 |
Qualitative |
China, Europe, and United States |
Framework on the international technology transfer between universities. |
Chinese perspective is to enter international TT collaborations formally and with resource commitments, while Western perspective suggests informal entry without the creation of a new entity. Western perspective encourages formal structures over time, through commitment of resources and collaborative learning. Chinese perspective embraces the reduction of formal structures when increased confidence and trust. |
Mavi, Gheibdoust, Khanfar, & Mavi (2019)Mavi, R. K., Gheibdoust, H., Khanfar, A. A., & Mavi, N. K. (2019). Ranking factors influencing strategic management of university business incubators with ANP. Management Decision.
|
4 |
Quantitative |
Iran |
Identify the factors influencing strategic management of university business incubators. |
Human resources are the most-important factor, followed by technological, financial, and organizational resources. Talented managers and employees are the backbone of all organizations and incubators. |
Pickernell, Ishizaka, Huang, & Senyard (2019)Pickernell, D., Ishizaka, A., Huang, S., & Senyard, J. (2019). Entrepreneurial university strategies in the UK context: towards a research agenda. Management Decision .
|
1 |
Quantitative |
United Kingdom |
Explore the Knowledge Exchange (KE) strategy of universities in relation to their portfolio of KE activities. |
Entrepreneurial universities valorize university knowledge through concentration on five KE activities: consultancy, personal development, software license income, non-software license income and contract research. |
Homer, Jayawarna, Giordano, & Jones (2019)Horner, S., Jayawarna, D., Giordano, B., & Jones, O. (2019). Strategic choice in universities: Managerial agency and effective technology transfer. Research Policy , 48(5), 1297-1309.
|
3 |
Quantitative |
United Kingdom |
Examines the relationship between strategic planning and technology transfer effectiveness. |
It is the alignment between strategic choices made by university managers and the supporting organizational infrastructure that accounts for variations in technology transfer effectiveness. Universities that engage a wider number of faculty in strategic planning efforts benefit most. |
Robertson, McCarthy, & Pitt (2019)Robertson, J., McCarthy, I. P., & Pitt, L. (2019). Leveraging social capital in university-industry knowledge transfer strategies: A comparative positioning framework. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(4), 461-472.
|
4 |
Qualitative |
Canada, Malta, and South Africa |
Understanding how social capital in UI partnerships affect knowledge transfer strategies. |
By exploring contrasting settings on the knowledge transfer strategy framework, a clearer picture is provided regarding the competitive advantages - or lack thereof - that the strategic knowledge transfer positioning offers. |
Berbegal-Mirabent, Gil-Domenech, & De La Torre (2020)Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Gil-Doménech, D., & Eva, M. (2020). Examining strategies behind universities’ technology transfer portfolio: how different patterns of resource consumption can lead to similar technology transfer profiles. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal.
|
0 |
Qualitative |
Spain |
Analyze how different patterns of production factors consumption led to specific technology transfer outcomes. |
There is no unique formula of resource consumption that leads to a specific portfolio of TT outcomes. Universities must resort to internal intangible resources or inimitable combinations of the available resources to develop competitive advantages. |
Pitsakis & Giachetti (2020)Pitsakis, K., & Giachetti, C. (2020). Information-based imitation of university commercialization strategies: The role of technology transfer office autonomy, age, and membership into an association. Strategic Organization, 18(4), 573-616.
|
0 |
Quantitative |
United Kingdom |
Propensity to imitate peers when designing commercialization strategies. |
There is a negative relationship between Technology Transfer Offices’ (TTO) autonomy and their level of imitation of the most successful TTO’s strategy, and this relationship is moderated by the TTO’s age and by their membership into an association where the benchmark TTO is also a member. |