IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rnd/arimbr/v5y2013i7p337-341.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology Push vs. Market Pull in Technology University Innovation Commercialization Case Study: ITB

Author

Listed:
  • Indriany Ameka

Abstract

Technology-based innovation can comes either from market needs (market pull) then obtained the discovery of new innovation technology to help meet the needs of the community or from new invention which was later adapted by the community (technology push) that become useful new needs. The purpose of this paper is to determine the implications that what works better between technology push or market pull in technological innovation carried out by researchers in creating new technologies. In this paper, the study used the example of one of the universities in Indonesia, the ITB because it has a research institute that more active than any other university in Indonesia. Sample taken from the new product invention that have been successfully commercialized or not. To know whether successfully commercialized inventions are more likely depart from the market pull or technology push. We got the result of this research from technology innovation product that has been patented, from dept interviews by the researchers in ITB, and from focus group discussion among the junior researchers. The result of technology innovation product that only has been patented and the technology innovation product that already is commercialized and used by many people will be different. We will see the beginning of the idea appearance and the commercialization of their product innovation in the market from the researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Indriany Ameka, 2013. "Technology Push vs. Market Pull in Technology University Innovation Commercialization Case Study: ITB," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 5(7), pages 337-341.
    • Handle: RePEc:rnd:arimbr:v:5:y:2013:i:7:p:337-341
    DOI: 10.22610/imbr.v5i7.1060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/imbr/article/view/1060/1060
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/imbr/article/view/1060
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22610/imbr.v5i7.1060?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. Etzkowitz, Henry, 2003. "Research groups as 'quasi-firms': the invention of the entrepreneurial university," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 109-121, January.
    2. Scott Shane & Rakesh Khurana, 2003. "Bringing individuals back in: the effects of career experience on new firm founding," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(3), pages 519-543, June.
    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. Wawan Dhewanto & Donald Crestofel Lantu & Sri Herliana & Anggraeni Permatasari, 2016. "The obstacles for science technology parks in a developing country," International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(1), pages 4-19.

    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. Andrew A. Toole & Dirk Czarnitzki, 2009. "Exploring the Relationship Between Scientist Human Capital and Firm Performance: The Case of Biomedical Academic Entrepreneurs in the SBIR Program," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 101-114, January.
    2. Abreu, Maria & Grinevich, Vadim, 2013. "The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 408-422.
    3. Gimmon, Eli & Levie, Jonathan, 2010. "Founder's human capital, external investment, and the survival of new high-technology ventures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 1214-1226, November.
    4. Anne Casati & Corine Genet, 2014. "Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 11-32, February.
    5. Roberto Iorio & Sandrine Labory & Francesco Rentocchini, 2014. "Academics’ Motivations and Depth and Breadth of Knowledge Transfer Activities," Working Papers 1401, c.MET-05 - Centro Interuniversitario di Economia Applicata alle Politiche per L'industria, lo Sviluppo locale e l'Internazionalizzazione.
    6. Erik Stam & Roy Thurik & Peter van der Zwan, 2010. "Entrepreneurial exit in real and imagined markets," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(4), pages 1109-1139, August.
    7. Jolanda Hessels & Peter van der Zwan, 2011. "Entrepreneurial exit, ability and engagement across countries in different stages of development," Scales Research Reports H201116, EIM Business and Policy Research.
    8. Pandza, Krsto & Ellwood, Paul, 2013. "Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1112-1125.
    9. Pontus Braunerhjelm, 2007. "Academic entrepreneurship: Social norms, university culture and policies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(9), pages 619-631, November.
    10. Toole, Andrew A. & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2007. "Life Scientist Mobility from Academe to Industry: Does Academic Entrepreneurship Induce a Costly ?Brain Drain? on the Not-for-Profit Research Sector?," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-072, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Grandi, Alessandro & Grimaldi, Rosa, 2005. "Academics' organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 821-845, November.
    12. Jolien Roelandt & Petra Andries & Mirjam Knockaert, 2022. "The contribution of board experience to opportunity development in high-tech ventures," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 1627-1645, March.
    13. Brem, Alexander & Radziwon, Agnieszka, 2017. "Efficient Triple Helix collaboration fostering local niche innovation projects – A case from Denmark," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 130-141.
    14. Backman, Mikaela & Karlsson, Charlie, 2013. "Who says life is over after 55? Entrepreneurship and an aging population," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 325, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    15. Centobelli, Piera & Cerchione, Roberto & Esposito, Emilio & Shashi,, 2019. "Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: A twisting learning path model of ambidexterity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 172-194.
    16. Michael Fritsch & Stefan Krabel, 2012. "Ready to leave the ivory tower?: Academic scientists’ appeal to work in the private sector," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 271-296, June.
    17. Ding, Waverly & Choi, Emily, 2008. "Divergent Paths or Stepping Stones: A Comparison of Scientists’ Advising and Founding Activities," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt4907j25p, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    18. Simeone, Luca & Secundo, Giustina & Schiuma, Giovanni, 2017. "Adopting a design approach to translate needs and interests of stakeholders in academic entrepreneurship: The MIT Senseable City Lab case," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 64, pages 58-67.
    19. David B. Audretsch & Donald F. Kuratko & Albert N. Link, 2016. "Dynamic entrepreneurship and technology-based innovation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 603-620, July.
    20. Power, Michael, 2015. "How accounting begins: Object formation and the accretion of infrastructure," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 43-55.

    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:rnd:arimbr:v:5:y:2013:i:7:p:337-341. 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: Muhammad Tayyab (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/imbr .

    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.