IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0293951.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation framework for facilitating the technology transfers of universities: Focusing on the perspective of technology donors

Author

Listed:
  • Jongyi Hong
  • Jeonghwa Cha
  • Bilegjargal G.
  • Kyungbo Park

Abstract

Technological innovation and preoccupation with new markets through technological innovation have become critical factors in achieving success in the global market. Currently, companies cannot develop and commercialize all technologies. Therefore, the importance of technology transfers is rapidly increasing. Technology transfer is a crucial strategy adopted by organizations to remain innovative and competitive. However, Korea’s technology transfer rate is only 37.9%. In particular, the technology transfer rate from universities to companies is lower than that from government-funded research institutes in Korea. Although the fundamental approach for resolving barriers to technology transfer have been studied, previous research has been conducted from a narrow definition of technology transfer. Furthermore, previous research has focused on analyzing the success factors of technology transfer, presenting technology transfer processes, or conducting case studies. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a technology donor diagnosis framework based on CSFs (Critical Success Factors) to eliminate obstacles to technology transfers. To lower the barriers to technology transfers, it is necessary to develop a strategy for a successful technology transfer based on the diagnosis of technology donors. This study develops a diagnosis framework for universities from the perspective of technology donors, implements and tests the framework using case studies, and proposes strategies for each stage of technology transfer growth. The framework is able to assess multidimensional perspectives, because CSFs and PMs were extracted based on BSC. Furthermore, by comparing the perspectives score of technology donors in different universities, technology donors can identify the areas in which each university is lacking in its current situation. Multidimensional diagnosis and aggregation score of technology donors offer to extract optimal CSFs for technology transfer activation for each growth stage.

Suggested Citation

  • Jongyi Hong & Jeonghwa Cha & Bilegjargal G. & Kyungbo Park, 2023. "Evaluation framework for facilitating the technology transfers of universities: Focusing on the perspective of technology donors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(12), pages 1-32, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0293951
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293951
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0293951
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0293951&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0293951?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. 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.
    2. Albert Link & Donald Siegel, 2005. "Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 169-181.
    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. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S., 2005. "University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 253-257, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Johnson, William H.A., 2011. "Managing university technology development using organizational control theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 842-852, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Claudia Curi & Cinzia Daraio & Patrick Llerena, 2012. "University technology transfer: how (in)efficient are French universities?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 36(3), pages 629-654.
    6. Anja Schoen & Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie & Joachim Henkel, 2014. "Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 435-453, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Laura Kreiling & Ahmed Bounfour, 2020. "A practice-based maturity model for holistic TTO performance management: development and initial use," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1718-1747, December.
    9. Chapple, Wendy & Lockett, Andy & Siegel, Donald & Wright, Mike, 2005. "Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 369-384, April.
    10. Christoph Grimpe & Heide Fier, 2010. "Informal university technology transfer: a comparison between the United States and Germany," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(6), pages 637-650, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Francisco I. Vega-Gomez & Francisco J. Miranda-Gonzalez, 2021. "Choosing between Formal and Informal Technology Transfer Channels: Determining Factors among Spanish Academicians," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, February.
    13. Modic, Dolores & Suklan, Jana, 2022. "Multidimensional experience and performance of highly skilled administrative staff: Evidence from a technology transfer office," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    14. Marcel Hülsbeck & Erik Lehmann & Alexander Starnecker, 2013. "Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 199-215, June.
    15. Bozeman, Barry & Rimes, Heather & Youtie, Jan, 2015. "The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 34-49.
    16. Donald Siegel & Mike Wright & Wendy Chapple & Andy Lockett, 2008. "Assessing The Relative Performance Of University Technology Transfer In The Us And Uk: A Stochastic Distance Function Approach," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7-8), pages 717-729.
    17. Ekaterina Albats & Irina Fiegenbaum & James A. Cunningham, 2018. "A micro level study of university industry collaborative lifecycle key performance indicators," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 389-431, April.
    18. Rory O’Shea & Harveen Chugh & Thomas Allen, 2008. "Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 653-666, December.
    19. Benjamin Yeo, 2019. "What Drives University Technological Innovation Outcomes? A Re-Vitalised Investigation," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(03), pages 1-28, September.
    20. Arman Yalvac Aksoy & Catherine Beaudry, 2021. "How are companies paying for university research licenses? Empirical evidence from university-firm technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2051-2121, December.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0293951. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.