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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. repec:ehu:cuader:52006 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Zoe Chen & Vicki Janine Little & Nguyen Hoang Thuan, 2025. "The evolving role of technology transfer offices in the entrepreneurial university: Go-betweens or playmakers?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 1060-1079, June.
    6. Jose M. Sallan & Oriol Lordan, 2025. "University technology transfer: leveraging experiential learning and TTO’s resources," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 221-237, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Aldridge, T. Taylor & Audretsch, David, 2011. "The Bayh-Dole Act and scientist entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1058-1067, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Odysseas Cartalos & Stelios Rozakis & Dominiki Tsiouki, 2018. "A method to assess and support exploitation projects of university researchers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 986-1006, August.
    11. Rhoda Ahoba-Sam & David Charles, 2019. "Building of Academics’ Networks—An analysis based on Causation and Effectuation theory," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 39(2), pages 143-161, October.
    12. Paolo Gubitta & Alessandra Tognazzo & Federica Destro, 2016. "Signaling in academic ventures: the role of technology transfer offices and university funds," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 368-393, April.
    13. Prokop, Daniel, 2021. "University entrepreneurial ecosystems and spinoff companies: Configurations, developments and outcomes," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Yung-Chi Shen, 2017. "Identifying the key barriers and their interrelationships impeding the university technology transfer in Taiwan: a multi-stakeholder perspective," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2865-2884, November.
    15. Schneider, K. Florian, 2024. "Intermediaries (not) in action: Impediments to initiating the utilization of public research," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    16. Hiroyuki Okamuro & Junichi Nishimura, 2013. "Impact of university intellectual property policy on the performance of university-industry research collaboration," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 273-301, June.
    17. Maria Abreu & Vadim Grinevich, 2017. "Gender patterns in academic entrepreneurship," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 763-794, August.
    18. 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.
    19. Michaela Trippl & Tanja Sinozic & Helen Lawton Smith, 2015. "The Role of Universities in Regional Development: Conceptual Models and Policy Institutions in the UK, Sweden and Austria," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(9), pages 1722-1740, September.
    20. Christoph Kober, 2010. "Enhancing Knowledge-Based Regional Economic Development: Potentials and Barriers for Technology Transfer Offices," NEURUS papers neurusp139, NEURUS - Network of European and US Regional and Urban Studies.
    21. Hsu, David W.L. & Shen, Yung-Chi & Yuan, Benjamin J.C. & Chou, Chiyan James, 2015. "Toward successful commercialization of university technology: Performance drivers of university technology transfer in Taiwan," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 25-39.

    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: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.