IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v119y2020icp218-229.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

University technology transfer organizations: Roles adopted in response to their regional innovation system stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Kreiling, Laura
  • Serval, Sarah
  • Peres, Raphaële
  • Bounfour, Ahmed

Abstract

This paper investigates the organizational roles that University Technology Transfer Organizations (UTTOs) adopt in response to their Regional Innovation System (RIS) stakeholders. In a qualitative case study, we focus on ‘systemic’ intermediation and investigate three French UTTOs within their respective RIS. Utilizing a conceptual framework anchored in stakeholder theory, four RIS stakeholders who operate at an operational or institutional level are identified. This broadens the traditional focus on academic and industry as the main stakeholders. In the three cases, we find that in response to these RIS stakeholders, six organizational roles were concurrently adopted: University Defender, Boundary Spanner, Investor, Cultural Change Agent, Territorial Builder, and Accountability Officer. It is discussed how the multitude of roles creates organizational tensions and their managerial implications. These findings improve the understanding on the influence of RIS on UTTOs and their organizational roles as part of a systemic and active approach to the innovation process.

Suggested Citation

  • Kreiling, Laura & Serval, Sarah & Peres, Raphaële & Bounfour, Ahmed, 2020. "University technology transfer organizations: Roles adopted in response to their regional innovation system stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 218-229.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:119:y:2020:i:c:p:218-229
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296319304990
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markovic, Stefan & Bagherzadeh, Mehdi, 2018. "How does breadth of external stakeholder co-creation influence innovation performance? Analyzing the mediating roles of knowledge sharing and product innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 173-186.
    2. George Baker & Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 2002. "Relational Contracts and the Theory of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 39-84.
    3. Harro van Lente & Marko Hekkert & Ruud Smits & Bas van Waveren, 2003. "Roles of Systemic Intermediaries in Transition Processes," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(03), pages 247-279.
    4. Witold J. Henisz & Sinziana Dorobantu & Lite J. Nartey, 2014. "Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1727-1748, December.
    5. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    6. Elena Giaretta, 2014. "The trust “builders” in the technology transfer relationships: an Italian science park experience," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 675-687, October.
    7. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    8. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 27-48, January.
    9. Marine Agogué & Anna Yström & Pascal Le Masson, 2013. "Rethinking The Role Of Intermediaries As An Architect Of Collective Exploration And Creation Of Knowledge In Open Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(02), pages 1-24.
    10. Marine Agogué & Anna Yström & Pascal Le Masson, 2013. "Rethinking the role of intermediaries as an architect of collective exploration and creation of knowledge in open innovation," Post-Print hal-00707376, HAL.
    11. Anna Comacchio & Sara Bonesso & Claudio Pizzi, 2012. "Boundary spanning between industry and university: the role of Technology Transfer Centres," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 943-966, December.
    12. Cooke, Philip & Gomez Uranga, Mikel & Etxebarria, Goio, 1997. "Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 475-491, December.
    13. Thomas Maak, 2007. "Responsible Leadership, Stakeholder Engagement, and the Emergence of Social Capital," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 329-343, September.
    14. Tullberg, Jan, 2013. "Stakeholder theory: Some revisionist suggestions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 127-135.
    15. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    16. Cooke, Philip, 2002. "Regional Innovation Systems: General Findings and Some New Evidence from Biotechnology Clusters," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 133-145, January.
    17. Marine Agogué & Elsa Berthet & Tobias Fredberg & Pascal Le Masson & Blanche Segrestin & Martin Stoetzel & Martin Wiener & Anna Yström, 2017. "Explicating the role of innovation intermediaries in the 'unknown': a contingency approach," Post-Print hal-01481878, HAL.
    18. Scandelius, Christina & Cohen, Geraldine, 2016. "Achieving collaboration with diverse stakeholders—The role of strategic ambiguity in CSR communication," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3487-3499.
    19. Anna Yström & Hedvig Aspenberg, 2017. "Open For Innovation? Practices Supporting Collaboration In Swedish Regional Clusters," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(05), pages 1-28, June.
    20. Marcel Bogers & Ann-Kristin Zobel & Allan Afuah & Esteve Almirall & Sabine Brunswicker & Linus Dahlander & Lars Frederiksen & Annabelle Gawer & Marc Gruber & Stefan Haefliger & John Hagedoorn & Dennis, 2017. "The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 8-40, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kim, Jong-Seok & Kim, Byung-Keun, 2022. "Examining different technology transfer capabilities and their counterpart works from two different positions," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    2. Brown, Austin R. & Wood, Matthew S. & Scheaf, David J., 2022. "Discovery sells, but who’s buying? An empirical investigation of entrepreneurs’ technology license decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 403-415.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laura Kreiling & Ahmed Bounfour, 2020. "A practice-based maturity model for holistic TTO performance management: development and initial use," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1718-1747, December.
    2. Pantano, Eleonora & Priporas, Constantinos-Vasilios & Viassone, Milena & Migliano, Giuseppe, 2020. "Does the stakeholder engagement result in new drinks? Evidence from family owned SMEs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 185-194.
    3. Rossi, Federica & Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Russo, Margherita, 2022. "New business models for public innovation intermediaries supporting emerging innovation systems: The case of the Internet of Things," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    4. Chamaret, Cécile & Steyer, Véronique & Mayer, Julie C., 2020. "“Hands off my meter!” when municipalities resist smart meters: Linking arguments and degrees of resistance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    5. Delorme, Donatienne, 2023. "The role of proximity in the design of innovation intermediaries' business models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    6. Howells, Jeremy, 2024. "Innovation intermediaries in a digital paradigm: A theoretical perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    7. De Silva, Muthu & Howells, Jeremy & Meyer, Martin, 2018. "Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge–based practices and internal value creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 70-87.
    8. Robert Huggins & Daniel Prokop & Piers Thompson, 2020. "Universities and open innovation: the determinants of network centrality," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 718-757, June.
    9. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    10. Müllner, Jakob & Puck, Jonas, 2018. "Towards a holistic framework of MNE–state bargaining: A formal model and case-based analysis," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 15-26.
    11. Siegel, Donald & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Jennings, P. Devereaux & Xue, Lan, 2023. "Technology transfer from national/federal labs and public research institutes: Managerial and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    12. Taheri, Mozhdeh & van Geenhuizen, Marina, 2016. "Teams' boundary-spanning capacity at university: Performance of technology projects in commercialization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 31-43.
    13. Ogink, Ruben H.A.J. & Goossen, Martin C. & Romme, A. Georges L. & Akkermans, Henk, 2023. "Mechanisms in open innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Damien Dietsch & Rim Khemiri, 2018. "Impact Of The Use Of Knowledge Obtained Through Informal Exchanges On The Performance Of Innovation Projects: For The Enrichment Of Inbound Open Innovation Practices," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(06), pages 1-35, August.
    15. Amalya L. Oliver & Kathleen Montgomery & Shimrit Barda, 2020. "The multi-level process of trust and learning in university–industry innovation collaborations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 758-779, June.
    16. Kerr, Clive & Phaal, Robert, 2018. "Directing the technology intelligence activity: An ‘information needs’ template for initiating the search," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 265-276.
    17. Villani, Elisa & Rasmussen, Einar & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2017. "How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-102.
    18. Signe Pedersen & Christian Clausen & Michael Søgaard Jørgensen, 2023. "Navigating value networks to co‐create sustainable business models: An actionable staging approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 240-258, January.
    19. Apa, Roberta & De Noni, Ivan & Orsi, Luigi & Sedita, Silvia Rita, 2018. "Knowledge space oddity: How to increase the intensity and relevance of the technological progress of European regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1700-1712.
    20. Good, Matthew & Knockaert, Mirjam & Soppe, Birthe & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 35-50.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:119:y:2020:i:c:p:218-229. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.