IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i12p7385-d840577.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology Development Decision-Making Points and Differences in Identifying Commercial Opportunities for Mechatronics, Laser, and Nanoelectronic Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Vaida Zemlickienė

    (Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Zenonas Turskis

    (Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

There is a popular idea that technology-development success depends on some creative magic, but leaders contradict the assertion that innovation is a process that can be perfected. Turning technology into reality requires an excellent understanding of the development process from idea to market. The technology commercialization process is broken down into phases in which vital decision-making points exist. In the scientific literature, which examines and analyzes the process of technology development and its problems, there is a variety of views and opinions related to the concepts used to define this process and its content. These motives led to the formulation of the first objective of this article: to analyze technology-development models studied by different researchers and used by different reliable organizations. The second objective is to determine the content of the technology-development process and processes that are alternative or related to the content of the technology-development process, in this way elucidate the differences and interfaces between these models and the vital decision-making points. There are many vital decision-making points in the early stage of technology development. However, only one point—identification of commercial opportunities, determines whether technology will reach other vital decision points. Based on the results of this identification, large-scale investments are made. The decision made at this stage determines whether or not a project will have a successful return on investment. However, the specifics of the different technology industries are apparent, and these differences may affect the identification of commercial opportunities. The article also sought to reveal the specifics of commercialization for different technology industries. The research uses the integrated fuzzy Delphic-Eckenrode Likert-type scale-based rating technique for grey numbers to gather expert opinions and determine the weights of factors. The research results show the differences in identifying commercial opportunities for mechatronics, laser, and nanoelectronic technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Vaida Zemlickienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2022. "Technology Development Decision-Making Points and Differences in Identifying Commercial Opportunities for Mechatronics, Laser, and Nanoelectronic Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-22, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7385-:d:840577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7385/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7385/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. 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.

    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. Cornelia Lawson, 2013. "Academic Inventions Outside the University: Investigating Patent Ownership in the UK," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 385-398, July.
    2. Esteban Lafuente & Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent, 2019. "Assessing the productivity of technology transfer offices: an analysis of the relevance of aspiration performance and portfolio complexity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 778-801, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    6. David Grosse Kathoefer & Jens Leker, 2012. "Knowledge transfer in academia: an exploratory study on the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 658-675, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Paola Giuri & Federico Munari & Martina Pasquini, 2013. "What Determines University Patent Commercialization? Empirical Evidence on the Role of IPR Ownership," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 488-502, July.
    9. Catarina Maia & João Claro, 2013. "The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: an exploratory study," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 641-650, October.
    10. Taouaf, Ilham & Elyoussoufi Attou, Omar & El Ganich, Said & Arouch, Moha, 2021. "The Technology Transfer Office (TTO): Toward a Viable Model for Universities in Morocco," Cuadernos de Gestión, Universidad del País Vasco - Instituto de Economía Aplicada a la Empresa (IEAE).
    11. James A. Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly, 2018. "Macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 545-557, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Klofsten, Magnus & Fayolle, Alain & Guerrero, Maribel & Mian, Sarfraz & Urbano, David & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change - Key strategic challenges," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 149-158.
    14. Insu Cho & Young Hoon Kwak & Jaehyeon Jun, 2019. "Sustainable Idea Development Mechanism in University Technology Commercialization (UTC): Perspectives from Dynamic Capabilities Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-16, November.
    15. Federica Rossi, 2014. "The efficiency of universities’ knowledge transfer activities: A multi-output approach beyond patenting and licensing," Working Papers 16, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Feb 2014.
    16. Bijedić, Teita & Chlosta, Simone & Werner, Arndt, 2016. "Inventions and their commercial exploitation in academic institutions: Analysing determinants among academics," Working Papers 04/16, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn.
    17. Meoli, Azzurra & Fini, Riccardo & Sobrero, Maurizio & Wiklund, Johan, 2020. "How entrepreneurial intentions influence entrepreneurial career choices: The moderating influence of social context," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(3).
    18. Gianluca Fabiano & Andrea Marcellusi & Giampiero Favato, 2020. "Public–private contribution to biopharmaceutical discoveries: a bibliometric analysis of biomedical research in UK," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 153-168, July.
    19. Victoria Galán-Muros & Peter Sijde & Peter Groenewegen & Thomas Baaken, 2017. "Nurture over nature: How do European universities support their collaboration with business?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 184-205, February.
    20. Aldridge, T. Taylor & Audretsch, David, 2011. "The Bayh-Dole Act and scientist entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1058-1067, October.

    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:12:p:7385-:d:840577. 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.