Abstract
This chapter identifies the four causes behind the failure to select the appropriate research initiatives in early stages of the innovation process: choosing nonholistic performance metrics to decide among projects, a lack of knowledge sharing among agents of the research center, and a lack of either academic or business experience in senior roles. Then, the author examines four practical tools that leading institutions are implementing to solve those problems at research centers: prioritizing projects based on a collection of academic, economic, and social impact metrics; mapping each researcher’s focus of study through a research map and incentivizing collaborations and sharing the best practices among them; using professional recruitment for academic and executive directors; and attracting an international advisory board.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Campbell, T. I. D. & Slaughter, S. Faculty and administrators’ attitudes toward potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university–industry relationships. The Journal of Higher Education 70, 309–352 (1999).
Lee, Y. S. University–industry collaboration on technology transfer: Views from the ivory tower. Policy Studies Journal 26, 69–84 (1998).
Lee, Y. S. The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration. Journal of Technology Transfer 25, 111–133 (2000).
Nilsson, A., Rickne, A. & Bengtsson, L. Transfer of of academic research—Uncovering the grey zone author. The Journal of Technology Transfer 35, 617–636 (2010).
Lee, Y. S. ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy 25, 843–863 (1996).
Welsh, R., Glenna, L., Lacy, W. & Biscotti, D. Close enough but not too far: assessing the effects of university–industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism. Research Policy 37, 1854–1864 (2008).
Bozeman, B., Rimes, H. & Youtie, J. The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy 44, 34–49 (2015).
Gulbrandsen, M. & Smeby, J. C. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34, 932–950 (2005).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA Strategic Plan. (Washington DC, 2014). https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/FY2014_NASA_SP_508c.pdf.
Perkmann, M. et al. Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy 42, 423–442 (2013).
Debackere, K. & Veugelers, R. The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy 34, 321–342 (2005).
Besley, T. & Ghatak, M. Competition and incentives with motivated agents. American Economic Review 95, 616–636 (2005).
Boardman, P. C. & Corley, E. A. University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Research Policy 37, 900–913 (2008).
van Rijnsoever, F. J., Hessels, L. K. & Vandeberg, R. L. J. A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy 37, 1255–1266 (2008).
Harvard Business School. Faculty—Entrepreneurial Management—Faculty & Research http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/units/em/Pages/faculty.aspx (2017).
University of Cambridge. Machine Intelligence—Group Directory |Department of Engineering http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/people/research-group/214?field_user_surname_value_1=&field_user_list_category_tid=All (2017).
Shearer, K. & Bouthillier, F. Understanding knowledge management and information management: the need for an empirical perspective. Information Research 8(1), 141 (2002).
Prats, J., Siota, J. & Gironza, A. 2033: compitiendo en innovación (PriceWaterhouseCoopers; IESE Business School, 2016).
Sander, E. ERC Best Practices Manual Chapter 5 Industrial Collaboration and Innovation (National Science Foundation, 2013).
Mello, J. M. C. de & Rocha, F. C. A. Networking for regional innovation and economic growth: the Brazilian Petropolis technopole. International Journal of Technology Management 27, 488 (2004).
Ranga, M. & Etzkowitz, H. Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry and Higher Education 27, 237–262 (2013).
Currid, E. How Art and Culture Happen in New York. Journal of the American Planning Association 73, 454–467 (2007).
MIT Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation. Mission and History http://deshpande.mit.edu/about (2017).
McKinsey & Company. About MGI http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview/about-us (2017).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Siota, J. (2018). Stage 1: Research—Selecting Performance Metrics Based on Academic, Economic, and Social Impact. In: Linked Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60546-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60546-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60545-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60546-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)