IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v47y2022i1d10.1007_s10961-021-09843-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Team boundary-spanning activities and performance of technology transfer organizations: evidence from China

Author

Listed:
  • Xie Kaiji

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Antonio Crupi

    (Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna – Pisa)

  • Alberto Minin

    (Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna – Pisa)

  • Fabrizio Cesaroni

    (University of Messina)

Abstract

This study performs an in-depth analysis of the causes and consequences of team boundary-spanning activities in the context of Chinese technology transfer, by addressing three related research questions: what are the drivers of teams’ boundary-spanning activities? How do teams conduct boundary-spanning activities? What is the impact of teams’ boundary-spanning activities? Based on the “input–moderator–output–input” model of team effectiveness theory, this study firstly explores which factors drive technology transfer teams to engage in boundary-spanning activities. Then, it examines the effects that such activities have on technology transfer performance, both directly and indirectly, through a set of mediating factors. Finally, it explores whether external environmental conditions play any moderating role in the relationship between team boundary-spanning activities and team performance. The empirical analysis is based on original primary survey data collected from a representative sample of organizations involved in the Chinese technology transfer system. The study both contributes the team effectiveness theory applied to the specific context of technology transfer and offers practical suggestions to managers of technology transfer intermediaries.

Suggested Citation

  • Xie Kaiji & Antonio Crupi & Alberto Minin & Fabrizio Cesaroni, 2022. "Team boundary-spanning activities and performance of technology transfer organizations: evidence from China," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 33-62, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:47:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10961-021-09843-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-021-09843-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-021-09843-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-021-09843-8?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. Sébastien Brion & Vincent Chauvet & Barthelemy Chollet & Caroline Danièle Mothe, 2012. "Project leaders as team boundary spanners: Relational antecedents and performance outcomes," Post-Print hal-00919228, HAL.
    2. Prud'homme, Dan & von Zedtwitz, Max & Thraen, Joachim Jan & Bader, Martin, 2018. "“Forced technology transfer” policies: Workings in China and strategic implications," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 150-168.
    3. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Vincent Mangematin & Paul O’Reilly & James Cunningham, 2014. "PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 1-10, February.
    6. Bruneel, Johan & D'Este, Pablo & Salter, Ammon, 2010. "Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 858-868, September.
    7. Bercovitz, Janet & Feldman, Maryann & Feller, Irwin & Burton, Richard, 2001. "Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Academic Patent and Licensing Behavior: An Exploratory Study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 21-35, January.
    8. Jane E. Dutton & Susan J. Ashford & Katherine A. Lawrence & Kathi Miner-Rubino, 2002. "Red Light, Green Light: Making Sense of the Organizational Context for Issue Selling," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 355-369, August.
    9. Tomas Hellström & Merle Jacob, 2003. "Boundary organisations in science: From discourse to construction," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 235-238, August.
    10. Deborah Gladstein Ancona & David F. Caldwell, 1992. "Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 321-341, August.
    11. Fabrizio Cesaroni & Andrea Piccaluga, 2016. "The activities of university knowledge transfer offices: towards the third mission in Italy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 753-777, August.
    12. Henrik Bresman, 2010. "External Learning Activities and Team Performance: A Multimethod Field Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 81-96, February.
    13. Morgan Meyer & Matthew Kearnes, 2013. "Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and the market," Post-Print hal-00850565, HAL.
    14. Weiping Wu, 2010. "Managing and incentivizing research commercialization in Chinese Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 203-224, April.
    15. Morgan Meyer & Matthew Kearnes, 2013. "Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and the market," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 423-429, July.
    16. J. Justin Tan & Robert J. Litsschert, 1994. "Environment‐strategy relationship and its performance implications: An empirical study of the chinese electronics industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, January.
    17. Pablo D'Este & Frederick Guy & Simona Iammarino, 2013. "Shaping the formation of university--industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter?," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 537-558, July.
    18. Vincent Mangematin & Paul O'Reilly & James Cunningham, 2014. "Pis As Boundary Spanners, Science And Market Shapers," Post-Print hal-00794938, HAL.
    19. Donald S. Siegel & Reinhilde Veugelers & Mike Wright, 2007. "Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(4), pages 640-660, Winter.
    20. Annelore Huyghe & Mirjam Knockaert & Mike Wright & Evila Piva, 2014. "Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: the case of a hybrid model," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 289-307, August.
    21. Amy C. Edmondson, 2003. "Speaking Up in the Operating Room: How Team Leaders Promote Learning in Interdisciplinary Action Teams," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(6), pages 1419-1452, September.
    22. Cristina B. Gibson & Rebekah Dibble, 2013. "Excess May Do Harm: Investigating the Effect of Team External Environment on External Activities in Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 697-715, June.
    23. 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.
    24. A. Lievens & R. K. Moenaert, 2000. "Project Team Communication in Financial Service Innovation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 733-766, July.
    25. Phan, Phillip H. & Siegel, Donald S., 2006. "The Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer," Foundations and Trends(R) in Entrepreneurship, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 77-144, November.
    26. Andreas P. J. Schotter & Ram Mudambi & Yves L. Doz & Ajai Gaur, 2017. "Boundary Spanning in Global Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 403-421, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Albats, Ekaterina & Alexander, Allen T. & Cunningham, James A., 2022. "Traditional, virtual, and digital intermediaries in university-industry collaboration: exploring institutional logics and bounded rationality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Annelore Huyghe & Mirjam Knockaert & Mike Wright & Evila Piva, 2014. "Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: the case of a hybrid model," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 289-307, August.
    4. Kadigia Faccin & Christle Beer & Bibiana Volkmer Martins & Grabriela Zanandrea & Neta Kela & Corne Schutte, 2022. "What really matters for TTOs efficiency? An analysis of TTOs in developed and developing economies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1135-1161, August.
    5. 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.
    6. S. A. M. Dolmans & B. Walrave & S. Read & N. Stijn, 2022. "Knowledge transfer to industry: how academic researchers learn to become boundary spanners during academic engagement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1422-1450, October.
    7. Soares, Thiago J. & Torkomian, Ana L.V., 2021. "TTO's staff and technology transfer: Examining the effect of employees' individual capabilities," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    8. Temel, Serdal & Dabić, Marina & Murat Ar, Ilker & Howells, Jeremy & Ali Mert, & Yesilay, Rustem Baris, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between university innovation intermediaries and patenting performance," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    9. Christopher S. Hayter & Andrew J. Nelson & Stephanie Zayed & Alan C. O’Connor, 2018. "Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: a review, analysis and extension of the literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 1039-1082, August.
    10. Annelore Huyghe & Mirjam Knockaert & Evila Piva & Mike Wright, 2016. "Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 589-607, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Daniela Bolzani & Federico Munari & Einar Rasmussen & Laura Toschi, 2021. "Technology transfer offices as providers of science and technology entrepreneurship education," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 335-365, April.
    13. Pohle, Anna & Villani, Elisa & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2022. "Personnel motivation in knowledge transfer offices: The role of university-level and organizational-level antecedents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    14. Battaglia, Daniele & Landoni, Paolo & Rizzitelli, Francesco, 2017. "Organizational structures for external growth of University Technology Transfer Offices: An explorative analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 45-56.
    15. Delorme, Donatienne, 2023. "The role of proximity in the design of innovation intermediaries' business models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    16. Gideon D. Markman & Donald S. Siegel & Mike Wright, 2008. "Research and Technology Commercialization," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1401-1423, December.
    17. Brantnell, Anders & Baraldi, Enrico, 2022. "Understanding the roles and involvement of technology transfer offices in the commercialization of university research," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. Conor O'Kane & Vincent Mangematin & Will Geoghegan & Ciara Fitzgerald, 2015. "University Technology Transfer offices : the search for identity to build legimacy," Post-Print hal-01072998, HAL.
    19. Charlotta Dahlborg & Danielle Lewensohn & Rickard Danell & Carl Johan Sundberg, 2017. "To invent and let others innovate: a framework of academic patent transfer modes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 538-563, June.
    20. Alejandro Bengoa & Amaia Maseda & Txomin Iturralde & Gloria Aparicio, 2021. "A bibliometric review of the technology transfer literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1514-1550, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technology transfer; China; Team effectiveness; Team boundary-spanning activities; Team performance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • O39 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Other

    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:47:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10961-021-09843-8. 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.