IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v31y2006i6p673-684.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting Technology Success: Identifying Key Predictors and Assessing Expert Evaluation for Advanced Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Craig Galbraith
  • Sanford Ehrlich
  • Alex DeNoble

Abstract

This study investigates a set of precursor factors that appear related to future technology success, and whether or not expert evaluators can a priori provide useful information during the technology review process. Sixty-nine highly advanced post 9–11 technologies are tracked over time. Based upon the results of this study, we conclude that a reasonably good predictive model can be constructed from organizational and technology factors, such as firm size, stage of development, and strategic partnerships. The results also indicate that the incremental value of expert reviewers and technology evaluators to predict future technology success is relatively small. Reviewers that provided the greatest predicative power, however, had current scientific responsibilities. These results raise important issues regarding the capability of developing predictive models of technology success. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Craig Galbraith & Sanford Ehrlich & Alex DeNoble, 2006. "Predicting Technology Success: Identifying Key Predictors and Assessing Expert Evaluation for Advanced Technologies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 673-684, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:31:y:2006:i:6:p:673-684
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-006-0022-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10961-006-0022-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-006-0022-8?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. Heslop, Louise A & McGregor, Eileen & Griffith, May, 2001. "Development of a Technology Readiness Assessment Measure: The Cloverleaf Model of Technology Transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 369-384, October.
    2. Elton, Edwin J & Gruber, Martin J & Blake, Christopher R, 1996. "Survivorship Bias and Mutual Fund Performance," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 9(4), pages 1097-1120.
    3. Zacharakis, Andrew L. & Meyer, G. Dale, 2000. "The potential of actuarial decision models: Can they improve the venture capital investment decision?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 323-346, July.
    4. Scott Shane & Toby Stuart, 2002. "Organizational Endowments and the Performance of University Start-ups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 154-170, January.
    5. Craig S. Galbraith & Alex F. DeNoble & Sanford B. Ehrlich, 2004. ""Spin-In" Technology Transfer for Small R&D Bio-Technology Firms: The Case of Bio-Defense," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 29(3_4), pages 377-382, August.
    6. Davidsson, Per & Honig, Benson, 2003. "The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 301-331, May.
    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. Gabriela Menet & Marek Szarucki, 2020. "Impact of Value Co-Creation on International Customer Satisfaction in the Airsoft Industry: Does Country of Origin Matter?," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Miller, Fiona Alice & Sanders, Carrie B. & Lehoux, Pascale, 2009. "Imagining value, imagining users: Academic technology transfer for health innovation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1481-1488, April.
    3. Gicheva, Dora & Link, Albert N., 2016. "On the economic performance of nascent entrepreneurs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 109-117.
    4. Daniel Nepelski & Vincent Roy, 2021. "Innovation and innovator assessment in R&I ecosystems: the case of the EU Framework Programme," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 792-827, June.
    5. Juan Jesus Arenas & Domingo González, 2018. "Technology Transfer Models and Elements in the University-Industry Collaboration," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, June.
    6. Craig Galbraith & Alex DeNoble & Sanford Ehrlich & Jessica Mesmer-Magnus, 2010. "Review panel consensus and post-decision commercial performance: a study of early stage technologies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 253-281, April.
    7. Daniel Nepelski & Giuseppe Piroli, 2018. "Organizational diversity and innovation potential of EU-funded research projects," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 615-639, June.
    8. Daniel Nepelski & Vincent Roy & Annarosa Pesole, 2019. "The organisational and geographic diversity and innovation potential of EU-funded research networks," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 359-380, April.
    9. Stephan Hess & Roland Siegwart, 2013. "R&D Venture: proposition of a technology transfer concept for breakthrough technologies with R&D cooperation: A case study in the energy sector," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 153-179, April.
    10. 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.

    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. Craig Galbraith & Alex DeNoble & Sanford Ehrlich & Jessica Mesmer-Magnus, 2010. "Review panel consensus and post-decision commercial performance: a study of early stage technologies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 253-281, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Jing Zhang & Vangelis Souitaris & Pek–hooi Soh & Poh–kam Wong, 2008. "A Contingent Model of Network Utilization in Early Financing of Technology Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 32(4), pages 593-613, July.
    4. Ge, Jianhua & Li, Joanna Mingxuan & Zhao, Eric Yanfei & Yang, Fan, 2022. "Rags to riches? Entrepreneurs' social classes, resourceful time allocation, and venture performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(5).
    5. Hsu, David H., 2007. "Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 722-741, June.
    6. Junfu Zhang, 2011. "The advantage of experienced start-up founders in venture capital acquisition: evidence from serial entrepreneurs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 187-208, February.
    7. Tomas Karlsson & Caroline Wigren, 2012. "Start-ups among university employees: the influence of legitimacy, human capital and social capital," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 297-312, June.
    8. Ricardo Moutinho & Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira & Arnaldo Coelho & José Pires Manso, 2016. "Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 171-197, March.
    9. Erik Lundmark & Anna Krzeminska & Dean A. Shepherd, 2019. "Images of Entrepreneurship: Exploring Root Metaphors and Expanding Upon Them," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 43(1), pages 138-170, January.
    10. Rohit Aggarwal & David Kryscynski & Harpreet Singh, 2015. "Evaluating Venture Technical Competence in Venture Capitalist Investment Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2685-2706, November.
    11. Unger, Jens M. & Rauch, Andreas & Frese, Michael & Rosenbusch, Nina, 2011. "Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 341-358, May.
    12. Howell, Travis, 2022. "Coworking spaces: An overview and research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    13. Yami, Saïd & M'Chirgui, Zouhaier & Spano, Claude & Gontier Barykina, Olga, 2021. "Reinventing science and technology entrepreneurship education: The role of human and social capitals," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    14. Aldridge, T. Taylor & Audretsch, David, 2011. "The Bayh-Dole Act and scientist entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1058-1067, October.
    15. Marvel, Matthew R. & Wolfe, Marcus T. & Kuratko, Donald F., 2020. "Escaping the knowledge corridor: How founder human capital and founder coachability impacts product innovation in new ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(6).
    16. Robert P. Garrett & Chao Miao & Shanshan Qian & Tae Jun Bae, 2017. "Entrepreneurial spawning and knowledge-based perspective: a meta-analysis," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 355-378, August.
    17. Hoenig, Daniel & Henkel, Joachim, 2015. "Quality signals? The role of patents, alliances, and team experience in venture capital financing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1049-1064.
    18. Shiri M. Breznitz & Qiantao Zhang, 0. "Determinants of graduates’ entrepreneurial activity," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-18.
    19. Eric Gedajlovic & Benson Honig & Curt B. Moore & G. Tyge Payne & Mike Wright, 2013. "Social Capital and Entrepreneurship: A Schema and Research Agenda," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 37(3), pages 455-478, May.
    20. Frank J. Van Rijnsoever & Marijn A. Van Weele & Chris P. Eveleens, 0. "Network brokers or hit makers? Analyzing the influence of incubation on start-up investments," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-25.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    technology commercialization; prediction model; technology transfer; O32;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kap:jtecht:v:31:y:2006:i:6:p:673-684. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.