IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cuc/eforum/v13y2023i4p109-117.html

Methods and models for valuation of r&d results: Advantages and limitations

Author

Listed:
  • Lidia Lisovska

Abstract

The article summarises the issues of justification and selection of methods for assessing the value of scientific and technical work (STW) results in the process of their commercialisation by universities in the business environment. The main purpose of the study is to analyse the existing methods of valuation of the results of scientific and technical works as intellectual property objects and to group them to present characteristics for practical use. Assessing the value of R&D results is one of the fundamental tasks of its effective commercialisation. A qualitative and objective assessment should be considered as the first and decisive stage in the process of forming an agreement on the transfer of R&D results. The urgency of solving this scientific problem lies in the fact that determining a "fair" price should become not only a source of compensation for the authors' efforts, but also a factor in the successful innovative development of universities. The study of the problem is carried out in the following logical sequence: first, the methods and models for determining the value of R&D results are analysed, and then a comparative analysis of the advantages and limitations of their use for different types of R&D results and innovations is carried out, respectively. The methodological tools used in the study were: systematic approach, methods of analysis and synthesis, historical, logical generalisation, comparison, etc. The object of the study is the methodological and methodological approaches to assessing the value of the results of scientific and technological development, and the subject is the justification for choosing the optimal method for the established assessment goals. The study systematises models for assessing the value of the results of scientific and technological research. These are: asset-based models; models based on cost analysis; models based on competitive analysis; models based on income analysis; models based on value analysis. The study confirms and theoretically proves that the model that will not be limited to the unambiguous determination of the value of the R&D results, but will provide at least a two-level assessment of the value (minimum and maximum value), which would allow to determine the level of commercial potential of the R&D results. Such an approach would enable the university and the consumer of the results of the R&D to develop and implement measures to improve the state of affairs with this R&D, bringing its value assessment closer to the desired value. The results of the study may be useful for researchers, entrepreneurs, civil servants, university professors, graduate students, specialists of technology transfer centres or similar units of universities, auditors, technology assessors, managers of various institutional levels

Suggested Citation

  • Lidia Lisovska, 2023. "Methods and models for valuation of r&d results: Advantages and limitations," E-Forum Working Papers, Economic Forum, vol. 13(4), pages 109-117, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cuc:eforum:v:13:y:2023:i:4:p:109-117
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.36910/6775-2308-8559-2023-4-14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://e-forum.com.ua/web/uploads/pdf/2023_4_Lisovska.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/https://doi.org/10.36910/6775-2308-8559-2023-4-14?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xie, Xuemei & Wang, Hongwei, 2020. "How can open innovation ecosystem modes push product innovation forward? An fsQCA analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 29-41.
    2. 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.
    3. Syed Hammad Mian & Bashir Salah & Wadea Ameen & Khaja Moiduddin & Hisham Alkhalefah, 2020. "Adapting Universities for Sustainability Education in Industry 4.0: Channel of Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-33, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Kumar, Satish & Pandey, Neeraj & Lim, Weng Marc & Chatterjee, Akash Nil & Pandey, Nitesh, 2021. "What do we know about transfer pricing? Insights from bibliometric analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 275-287.
    6. Fan-Chuan Tseng & Mu-Hsuan Huang & Dar-Zen Chen, 2020. "Factors of university–industry collaboration affecting university innovation performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 560-577, April.
    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. Michele O’Dwyer & Raffaele Filieri & Lisa O’Malley, 2023. "Establishing successful university–industry collaborations: barriers and enablers deconstructed," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 900-931, June.
    2. Bojun Hou & Kexin Fang & Xing Tang & Qingqiu Gan, 2026. "Optimizing pie distribution: exploring the interplay of labor costs and university-industry collaboration," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 2034-2063, June.
    3. Călin Florin Băban & Marius Băban, 2022. "An Orchestration Perspective on Open Innovation between Industry–University: Investigating Its Impact on Collaboration Performance," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(15), pages 1-23, July.
    4. Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent & Victor Martin-Sanchez, 2026. "Seizing the economic and social impact of universities’ knowledge exchange activities: Does one size fit all?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 1063-1100, April.
    5. Verreynne, Martie-Louise & de Oliveira, Rui Torres & Cao, Zhe & Nguyen, Tam & Feast, George, 2025. "University–business collaboration: A collaboration readiness index and scale," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(8).
    6. Irina Ervits, 2024. "Developing indicators for the social benefits of university-industry collaborations," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Frank J. Rijnsoever & Laurens K. Hessels, 2021. "How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1917-1948, December.
    8. Alexandre Dias & Beatriz Selan, 2023. "How does university-industry collaboration relate to research resources and technical-scientific activities? An analysis at the laboratory level," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 392-415, February.
    9. Conor O’Kane & James A. Cunningham & Matthias Menter & Sara Walton, 2021. "The brokering role of technology transfer offices within entrepreneurial ecosystems: an investigation of macro–meso–micro factors," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1814-1844, December.
    10. Joana Costa & Ana Rita Neves & João Reis, 2021. "Two Sides of the Same Coin. University-Industry Collaboration and Open Innovation as Enhancers of Firm Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Isabel Cavalli & Charlie Joyez, 2021. "The Dynamics of French Universities in Patent Collaboration Networks," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-38, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    12. Shogo Katoh & Rick (H.L.) Aalbers & Shintaro Sengoku, 2021. "Effects and Interactions of Researcher’s Motivation and Personality in Promoting Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    13. Gary Chapman & Shukhrat Nasirov & Mathew Hughes & Paul Hughes, 2026. "Workforce age diversity and the intensity of inventive activities in universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 1896-1932, June.
    14. Schaeffer, Paola Rücker & Guerrero, Maribel & Fischer, Bruno Brandão, 2021. "Mutualism in ecosystems of innovation and entrepreneurship: A bidirectional perspective on universities’ linkages," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 184-197.
    15. Senmao Xia & Yuan Zhou & Zhaoxing Wang & Qile He & Glenn Parry, 2026. "Enhancing green innovation through university–industry collaboration and artificial intelligence: insights from regional innovation systems in China," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 653-681, April.
    16. Shuto Miyashita & Shogo Katoh & Tomohiro Anzai & Shintaro Sengoku, 2020. "Intellectual Property Management in Publicly Funded R&D Program and Projects: Optimizing Principal–Agent Relationship through Transdisciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, November.
    17. Joana Costa & João C.O. Matias, 2020. "Open Innovation 4.0 as an Enhancer of Sustainable Innovation Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, October.
    18. Wenjing Wang & Yiwei Liu, 2022. "Industrial funding and university technology transfer: the moderating role of intellectual property rights enforcement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1549-1572, October.
    19. Susana Fernández-Pérez de la Lastra & María-José Foncubierta-Rodríguez & Gonzalo Sánchez-Gardey, 2024. "Toward classification of transfer research: an exploratory analysis based on indicators of academic engagement of knowledge transfer in academia–industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 1043-1061, June.
    20. Amr S. Abdallah & Hala Amin & Mohammed Abdelghany & Ahmed A. Elamer, 2025. "Antecedents and consequences of intellectual capital: a systematic review, integrated framework, and agenda for future research," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 3067-3118, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:cuc:eforum:v:13:y:2023:i:4:p:109-117. 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: Economic Forum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://e-forum.com.ua/ .

    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.