Competitive strategies of knowledge and innovation commercialization: a unified swot and fuzzy ahp approach
Main Article Content
Keywords
Knowledge, Innovation, Commercialization, Strategy, FAHP approach, SWOT matrix.
Abstract
Universities have shown a strong desire to commercialize researches and innovations. As a result, they are increasingly weaning themselves from public budgets. Commercialization has become the gateway for privatization, but the improper selection of commercialization strategies often results in the elimination of resources and time. The correct evaluation and ranking of strategies for the best resources is essential for the competitive performance of a university. The hybrid SWOT and Fuzzy AHP model adopted in this study provides a clear categorization of these university strategies. The first and relevant criteria as well as sub-criteria are identified using SWOT analysis. Fuzzy AHP tool is then used to evaluate and rank the internal and external factors that affect competition in Iranian universities. Based on the IE matrix, the growth and the process of building strategies are important priorities when considering commercializing. The results of this study revealed that academic startups, joint technology, joint research laboratories, strategic alliances, recruiting pundit and contracting with industry are the best strategies for Iranian universities.
Downloads
References
Behavior and Organization, 52, 277–95.
Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM). (2003). AUTM Licensing Survey FY 2001., Association
of University Technology Managers.
Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM). (2010). Licensing Activity Survey FY2008. Association
of University Technology Managers.
Ayhan, M.B.(2015). A Fuzzy Ahp Approach For Supplier Selection Problem: A Case Study In A Gearmotor
Company. International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains (IJMVSC), 4(3). 11-23.
Bandarian, R. (2007). From Idea to Market in RIPI; An agile Frame for NTD Process. Journal of Technology
Management and Innovation, 2(1), JOTMI Research Group.
Bercovitz, J., and Feldmann, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual
framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 31, 175–188.
Bramwell, A., and Wolf, D. A., (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial
University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37, 1175–1187.
Barnes, T., Pashby, I., and Gibbons, A. (2002). Effective University–Industry Interaction: A Multi-case
Evaluation of Collaborative R&D Projects. European Management Journal, 20, 272–285.
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., and Burton, R. (2001). Organizational Structure as Determinants of
Academic Patent and Licensing Behavior: An Exploratory Study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania
State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26, 21–35.
Brachos, D., Konstantinos, K., Soderquist, K.E., Prastacos, G. (2007). Knowledge Effectiveness, Social Context
and Innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 31-44.
Brooks, G., Heffner, A., & Henderson, D. (2014). A SWOT Analysis of Competitive Knowledge from Social
Media for A Small Start-Up Business. Review of Business Information Systems, 18(1), 23-34.
Boutkhoum, O., Hanine, M., Agouti, T., and Tikniouine, A. (2015). An improved hybrid multi-criteria/
multidimensional model for strategic industrial location selection: Casablanca industrial zones as a case
study. Springerplus. 4, 628.
Buckley, J. J., (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Systems, 17 (1), 233–247.
Castrogiovanni, G., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., Mas-Tur, A., and Roig-Tierno, N.(2016). Where to acquire knowledge:
Adapting knowledge management to financial institutions. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1812-1816
Chang, Y., Yang, P., and Chen, M. (2009). The determinants of academic research commercial performance:
Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38(6),936-946.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., and Walsh, J.P. (2000). Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability
Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not). NBER Working Paper No. 7552.
Debackere, K. and Veugelers, R. (2005). The Role of Academic Technology Transfer Organizations in Improving
Industry Science Links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to
a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109-123.
Feldman, M. P., Link, A. N., and Siegel, D. S. (2002). The economics of science and technology. Norwell, MA:
Kluwer Academic Publishing.
Friedman, J. and Silberman, J. (2003). University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and
Location Matter?. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 81–85.
Franklin, S., Wright, M., and Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and Surrogate Entrepreneurs in University Spin-out
Companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 127–141.
Guzak, J. R., & Rasheed, A. A. (2014). Governance and growth of professional service firms. Service Industries
Journal, 34(4), 295-313.
Goktepe, D. (2004). Investigation of University Industry Technology Transfer Cases: A Conceptual and
Methodological Approach. Division of Innovation-LTH Lund University. Retrieved from www.infra.kth.se/
cesis/cesis/conference/Devrim%20Goktepe.pdf.
Gans, J. S., and Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies
for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32, 333–350
Goldfarb, B. and Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of
university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32, 639–658.
Gittelman, M. (2008). National institutions, public–private knowledge flows, and innovation performance: A
comparative study of the biotechnology industry in the US and France. Research Policy, 35(7), 1052-
1068.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Salamzadeh, A. (2014). Evolving Entrepreneurial Universities: Experiences and
challenges in the Middle Eastern context. in Fayolle, A. & Redford, D. T. (2014). Handbook of Research
in Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurial University Handbook Volume 4 Cambridge: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Salamzadeh, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial Transformation in the Middle East:
Experiences from Tehran Universities. Technics Technologies Education Management, 10(4), 533-537.
Götsén, A., Pettersson, B., (2016). Business Incubators - the savior of startups? - An exploratory study on
knowledge acquisition in a business incubator from a startup perspective. Master’s Thesis 30 credits
Department of Business Studies Uppsala University.
González-Pernía, J.L., Iñaki, G.K., & Peña-Legazkue. (2013). An Assessment of the Determinants of University
Technology Transfer. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 6-17.
Gonzalez-Perez, M.A, Velez-Calle, A., Cathro, V., Caprar, D.V., & Taras, V.(2014). Virtual Teams and International
Business Teaching and Learning:The Case of the Global Enterprise Experience (GEE). Journal of Teaching
in International Business, 25(3), 200-213.
Gonzalez-Perez, M.A., and Leonard, L. (2013). Principles and strategies to balance ethical, social and
environmental concerns with corporate requirements. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Kasch, S., and Dowling, M. (2008). Commercialization strategies of young biotechnology firms: An empirical
analysis of the U.S. industry. Research Policy, 37, 1765–1777.
Knockaert, M., Vandenbroucke, E., Huyghe, A. (2012). Unraveling the need for innovation support services
in new technology-based firms: The impact of commercialization strategy. Science and public policy
(SPP), 40(1).
Kelley, D., Neck, H. M., O’Connor, G. C., & Paulson, A. (2005). Corporate entrepreneurship through radical
innovation: key organization and initiative level mechanisms. In Corporate entrepreneurship and
venturing (pp. 23-48). Springer US.
Khajeheian, D. (2013). “New Venture Creation in Social Media Platform; Towards a Framework for Media
Entrepreneurship”. In Handbook of Social Media Management (125-142). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Khajeheian, D (2016a), “Telecommunication Policy: Communication Act Update”. Global Media Journal-
Canadian Edition, 9(1) 135-141.
Khajeheian, D. (2016b). “Audience Commodification: A Source of Innovation in Business Models”. Technology
Innovation Management Review, 6(8), 40-47.
Landry, R., Amara, N., and Ouimet, M.(2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from the
Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32,
561–592
Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., and Bozeman, B.(2007). An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of Academics to
Engage in Informal University Technology Transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641-655.
Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2004). Institutional Change and the Resource Flows going to Spin off Projects: The
case of IMEC (No. 04/241). Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B., and Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The Growth of Patenting and Licensing
by U.S. Universities: An Assessment of the Efects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30,
99–119.
MIT. (2015). An MIT Inventor’s Guide to Startups: for Faculty and Students. Technology Licensing Office.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (1999). Commercialization strategies In
Commercialization and Business Planning Guide for the Post-Award Period, Dawnbreaker Press, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 3, 37–46.
Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F., and Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spin-off creation.
Technovation, 22, 281–289
Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: uncovering the grey
zone. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 617-636.
OECD. (2002). Benchmarking Industry–Science Relationships. Paris: OECD.
Plewa, C. (2005). Differences in perceived benefits from university-industry relationships. In ANZMAC2005
Conference: Business Interaction, Relationships an Networks, University of Adelaide, South Australia.
Rutherford, M.W., & Holt D.T.(2007). Corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical look at the innovativeness
dimension and its antecedents. Journal of Organizational Change Management 20(3), 429-446
Rand Corporation. (2003). Technology Transfer of Federally Funded R & D. Science and Technology Policy
Institute.
Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., and Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university
knowledge. Technovation, 26, 518–533.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., and Jiang, L.(2006). University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature, in
S. Siegel. and M. Wright and A. Lockett (Eds), Special Issue of Industrial and Corporate Change “The Rise
of Entrepreneurial Activity at Universities: Organizational and Societal Implications”.
Rosenberg, N., and Nelson, R. R. (1994).American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry. Research
Policy, 23(3), 323–348.
Rogers, E.M., Takegami, S., and Yin, J. (2001). Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21,
253 – 261.
Reamer, A., Icerman, L., and Youtie, J. (2003). Technology Transfer and Commercialization: Their Role in Economic
Development. Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington.
Servo, J.C. (1998). Commercialization and business planning guide for the post award period: design especially
for the technology entrepreneur. Dawn Breaker Press.
Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (Eds.). (2015). The Chicago handbook of university technology transfer
and academic entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L.E., Link, A. N.(2003a). Commercial knowledge transfers from
universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. Journal of High
Technology Management Research, 14, 111–33.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., and Link, A. N.(2003b). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the
relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L.E. and Link, A. N.(2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of
scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization
of university technologies. Journal of engineering and technology managmemt, 21, 115-142.
Siegel, D. (2006). University–industry knowledge flows: an overview, in Advancing Measures of Innovation:
Knowledge Flows, Business Metrics and Measurement Strategies. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA
Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., and Wright, M. (2007). Technology Transfer Offices and Commercialization of
University Intellectual Property: Performance and Policy Implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy.
23(4), 640–60.
Shapira, P., and Wang, J. (2009). From lab to market? Strategies and issues in the commercialization of
nanotechnology in China. Asian Business and Management, 8(4), 461-489.
Samsom, K. J. and Gurdon, M. A. (1993). University scientists as entrepreneurs: a specialcase of technology
transfer and high-tech venturing. Technovation, 13(2), 63-71.
Shane, S.A. (2002). Selling University Technology Patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), l22-137
SBIR Program Reauthorization. Act retrieved from http://sbir.gov/about/about-sbir.
Urabe, K. (1988). Innovation and the Japanese management system. In K. Urabe, J. Child, & T. Kagono (Eds.),
Innovation and management international comparisons. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Velez-Ocampo, J.; Herrera-Cano, C., & GonzalezPerez, M.A. (2016). The Peruvian Amazon Company’s Death:
The Jungle Devoured Them. Advanced Series in Management, 15, 35-46.
Yetisen, A.K., Kamrani, E., Volpatti, L.R., Butt, H., Coskun, A.F., Khademhosseini, A., Cho,S., & Yun, S.H.
(2015).Entrepreneurship. Lab Chip, 15,363
Walter, J., Lechner, C. and Kellermanns, F. (2008).Disentangling alliance management processes:
decisionmaking, politicality, and alliance performance. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 530-560.
Zarea, H., & Salamzadeh, A. (2012). Identification of Output Performance Indicators in Commercialization of
University Research: An AHP based Study of EFQM Model. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development,
4(15), 85-104.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
Mike Friedrichsen, University and Founding Director at the Humboldt School in Berlin.
Professor of media economics and media innovation at the Stuttgart Media University and Founding
Director at the Humboldt School in Berlin. He studied Business Administration, Political Economics,
Journalism and Political Sciences in Kiel, Mainz and Berlin. He earned his doctorate at the Free University
of Berlin in 1996 at the Institute of empirical Market and Communication Research. His main
research interests are Media Management and Media Economics, Digital Communication, New Media
Technologies und Business Communication. Mike Friedrichsen emphasizes transfer between the
University and Economy and in leads several Networking Organizations. He is author and editor of
several books and has also published in different journals.
Hadi Zarea, Research fellow at department of planning in Zaminkav Research Center.
Research fellow at department of planning in Zaminkav Research Center. Hadi earned his MA in
Entrepreneurship with specialty in Public policy. He has been in charge of supervision in several research
projects for many national organizations and has received several awards. He appointed as the
supervisor of the national project of evaluation of 159 Universities by Ministry of Science, Research and
Technology. Hadi is an author of many academic articles in Innovation and Entrepreneurship both in
Persian and English.
Amin Tayebi, University of Science and Technology
MSc degree in industrial engineering from Iran University of Science and Technology. His main
research interest include system and productivity, Fuzzy AHP and Marketing management, Innovation
Management.
Fatemeh Asadi Saeed Abad, Islamic Azad University
M.Sc. degree in IT engineering from Islamic Azad University. Her main research interests include
Information engineering, computers and networks.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).