IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i23p15847-d986794.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determination of Importance of Key Decision Points in the Technology Commercialization Process: Attitude of the US and German Experts

Author

Listed:
  • Vaida Zemlickienė

    (The Institute of Sustainable Construction, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 03224 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Zenonas Turskis

    (The Institute of Sustainable Construction, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 03224 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

With the help of commercialization, inventions become marketable commodities that find new ways of solving problems. Turning technology into reality requires an excellent understanding of the development process from idea to market of the technology. The primary purpose of this article was to examine the commercialization process of inventions and divide the commercialization process into stages that culminate in decision points. Opinions of different authors and representatives of R&D organizations were compared concerning the content of technology commercialization, which is understood and named differently in the scientific and practical literature. Later, with the help of two groups of experts from the US and Germany, the importance of key decision points was determined. The research results were summarized using the MCDM method: the integrated Fuzzy Delphic–Eckenrode Likert-type Scale-based Rating Technique (FDELSRT). The results of this study can be applied in practice to making strategic decisions related to the allocation of efforts, limited time, and financial resources based on the determined importance of key decision points. Research in different countries and the comparison of results will identify areas and opportunities for further mutual learning and more intensive, mutually beneficial international cooperation in technology development.

Suggested Citation

  • Vaida Zemlickienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2022. "Determination of Importance of Key Decision Points in the Technology Commercialization Process: Attitude of the US and German Experts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15847-:d:986794
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15847/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15847/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qian Ma & Weiwei Wu & Yexin Liu, 2021. "The Fit between Technology Management and Technological Capability and Its Impact on New Product Development Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Maha Mohamed Alsebai Mohamed & Pingfeng Liu & Guihua Nie, 2021. "Are Technological Innovation and Foreign Direct Investment a Way to Boost Economic Growth? An Egyptian Case Study Using the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-28, March.
    3. P. Thokala & A. Duenas, 2012. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment," Post-Print hal-00800398, HAL.
    4. Jiafeng Gu, 2021. "Effects of Patent Policy on Outputs and Commercialization of Academic Patents in China: A Spatial Difference-in-Differences Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Maha Mohamed Alsebai Mohamed & Pingfeng Liu & Guihua Nie, 2022. "Causality between Technological Innovation and Economic Growth: Evidence from the Economies of Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-39, March.
    6. Isabel Palomo-Domínguez & Vaida Zemlickienė, 2022. "Evaluation Expediency of Eco-Friendly Advertising Formats for Different Generation Based on Spanish Advertising Experts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Ranjan Chaudhuri & Sheshadri Chatterjee & Demetris Vrontis & Sumana Chaudhuri, 2022. "Innovation in SMEs, AI Dynamism, and Sustainability: The Current Situation and Way Forward," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Allan Gray & Michael Boehlje & Vincent Amanor-Boadu & Joan Fulton, 2004. "Agricultural Innovation and New Ventures: Assessing the Commercial Potential," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1322-1329.
    9. Jolly & Creighton, 1977. "The technology transfer process: Concepts, framework and methodology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 77-91, September.
    10. Yiu-Kwan Fan & Wing-Yin Yu, 1983. "Gauging the process of international technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 45-51, March.
    11. Robert T. Eckenrode, 1965. "Weighting Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 180-192, November.
    12. Haddad, Malik & Sanders, David, 2018. "Selection of discrete multiple criteria decision making methods in the presence of risk and uncertainty," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 357-370.
    13. Markus A. Kirchberger & Larissa Pohl, 2016. "Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 1077-1112, October.
    14. Zenonas Turskis & Nikolaj Goranin & Assel Nurusheva & Seilkhan Boranbayev, 2019. "A Fuzzy WASPAS-Based Approach to Determine Critical Information Infrastructures of EU Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-25, 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. Liu, Bailu & Tian, Jilin, 2023. "Natural resources led innovation: Employing structural break approach to explore USA's natural resources sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PA).

    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. Preethu Rahman & Zhihe Zhang & Mohammad Musa, 2023. "Do technological innovation, foreign investment, trade and human capital have a symmetric effect on economic growth? Novel dynamic ARDL simulation study on Bangladesh," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 1327-1366, April.
    2. Vaida Zemlickienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2022. "Performance Measurement in R&D Projects: Relevance of Indicators Based on US and German Experts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Barbara Bini & Milena Vainieri & Sabina Nuti, 2015. "Definizione delle priorit? di intervento in sanit?: approcci socio-tecnici a confronto," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(93), pages 49-73.
    4. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Taking a closer look at multiple criteria analysis and economic evaluation," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139785, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Véronique Schaeffer & Sıla Öcalan-Özel & Julien Pénin, 2020. "The complementarities between formal and informal channels of university–industry knowledge transfer: a longitudinal approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 31-55, February.
    6. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    7. Renaud, Jean & Levrat, Eric & Fonteix, Christian, 2008. "Weights determination of OWA operators by parametric identification," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 77(5), pages 499-511.
    8. Henk Broekhuizen & Maarten J. IJzerman & A. Brett Hauber & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2017. "Weighing Clinical Evidence Using Patient Preferences: An Application of Probabilistic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 259-269, March.
    9. Bernhard Ultsch & Oliver Damm & Philippe Beutels & Joke Bilcke & Bernd Brüggenjürgen & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Wolfgang Greiner & Germaine Hanquet & Raymond Hutubessy & Mark Jit & Mirjam Knol & Rüdiger, 2016. "Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 227-244, March.
    10. Ferran Giones & Kari Kleine & Silke Tegtmeier, 2022. "Students as scientists’ co-pilots at the onset of technology transfer: a two-way learning process," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1373-1394, October.
    11. Xiaoli Wang & Yun Liu & Lingdi Chen & Yifan Zhang, 2022. "Correlation Monitoring Method and model of Science-Technology-Industry in the AI Field: A Case of the Neural Network," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    12. Min-Xing Wang & Lufei Huang & Zhen-Ming Chen, 2023. "The Impact of Green Financial Policy on the Regional Economic Development Level and AQI—Evidence from Zhejiang Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-23, February.
    13. Xu Dong & Yang Chen & Qinqin Zhuang & Yali Yang & Xiaomeng Zhao, 2022. "Agglomeration of Productive Services, Industrial Structure Upgrading and Green Total Factor Productivity: An Empirical Analysis Based on 68 Prefectural-Level-and-Above Cities in the Yellow River Basin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-19, September.
    14. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    15. Luigi Aldieri & Mohsen Brahmi & Bruna Bruno & Concetto Paolo Vinci, 2021. "Circular Economy Business Models: The Complementarities with Sharing Economy and Eco-Innovations Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-13, November.
    16. William C. N. Dunlop & C. Daniel Mullins & Olaf Pirk & Ron Goeree & Maarten J. Postma & Ashley Enstone & Louise Heron, 2016. "BEACON: A Summary Framework to Overcome Potential Reimbursement Hurdles," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 1051-1065, October.
    17. Marco Corsino & Paola Giuri & Salvatore Torrisi, 2019. "Technology spin-offs: teamwork, autonomy, and the exploitation of business opportunities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1603-1637, October.
    18. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
    19. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    20. Aris Angelis & Panos Kanavos, 2016. "Value-Based Assessment of New Medical Technologies: Towards a Robust Methodological Framework for the Application of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis in the Context of Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 435-446, May.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15847-:d:986794. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.