Clicca qui per scaricare

Attività e modelli universitari di trasferimento tecnologico
Titolo Rivista: ECONOMIA E SOCIETÀ REGIONALE  
Autori/Curatori:  Alessandra Colombelli, Elettra D’Amico, Emilio Paolucci, Riccardo Ricci 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2018 Fascicolo: Lingua: Italiano 
Numero pagine:  18 P. 10-27 Dimensione file:  409 KB
DOI:  10.3280/ES2018-003002
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 


Le università si trovano oggi a dover perseguire la loro "terza missione", essendo chiamate a contribuire allo sviluppo economico regionale. Esse svolgono pertanto diverse attività di trasferimento tecnologico. Questo articolo ha l’obiettivo di analizzare l’adozione di tali attività nelle università tecniche europee e di identificare i possibili modelli di trasferimento tecnologico. L’analisi presentata è di tipo quantitativo. I dati sono estrapolati da un questionario redatto da una Task Force dell’associazione universitaria Cesaer. Studiando i diversi approcci che le università hanno nei confronti del trasferimento tecnologico è stato possibile identificare tre diversi modelli: uno maturo, uno incompleto, e uno in via di sviluppo con un ruolo rispettivamente centrale, secondario e quasi centrale negli ecosistemi di cui fanno parte.


Keywords: Attività universitarie di trasferimento tecnologico, università imprenditoriale, modelli di trasferimento tecnologico

  1. Alexander A.T., Martin D.P. (2013). Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(1): 38-49.
  2. Amezcua A.S., Grimes M.G., Bradley S.W., Wiklund J. (2013). Organizational sponsorship and founding environments: a contingency view on the survival of business-incubated firms, 1994-2007. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6): 1628-1654.
  3. Autio E., Kenneth M., Mustar, P., Siegel D., Wright M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7): 1097-1108.
  4. Becattini G. (1990). The Marshallian district as a socio-economic notion.
  5. In: Pyke F., Becattini G., Sengenberger W., eds. Industrial Districts and Inter-Firm Cooperation in Italy. Geneva: International Institute for Labor Studies.
  6. Bozeman B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4): 627-655., 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1
  7. Bradley S.R., Hayter C.S., Link A.N. (2013a). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(6): 571-650., 10.1007/978-1-4419-1191-9_11DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1191-9_11
  8. Bradley S.R., Hayter C.S., Link A.N. (2013b). Proof of concept centers in the United States: An exploratory look. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4): 349-381.
  9. Cesaroni F., Piccaluga A. (2016). The activities of university knowledge transfer offices: towards the third mission in Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4): 753-777.
  10. Cooke P. (1997). Regions in a global market: the experiences of Wales and Baden-Wurttemberg. Review of International Political Economy, 4(2): 349-381., 10.1080/096922997347814DOI: 10.1080/096922997347814
  11. D’Este P., Patel P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36(9): 1295-1313.
  12. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industrygovernment relations. Research Policy, 29(2):109-123.
  13. 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4. Etzkowitz H., Webster A., Gebhardt C., Terra B.R.C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2): 313-330.
  14. Geuna A., Muscio A. (2009). The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature. Minerva, 47(1): 93-114.
  15. Grimpe C., Hussinger K. (2008). Formal and Informal Technology Transfer from Academia to Industry: Complementarity Effects and Innovation Performance. ZEW Discussion Papers., 10.1007/978-3-642-36708-3DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-36708-3
  16. Hayter C.S., Link A.N. (2015). On the economic impact of university proof of concept centers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1): 178-183., 10.1177/1476127016680564DOI: 10.1177/1476127016680564
  17. Isenberg D.J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6): 40-50., 10.2307/256548DOI: 10.2307/256548
  18. Jensen R., Thursby M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1): 240-259.
  19. Klein K.J., Sorra J.S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1055-1080., 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240103DOI: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240103
  20. Kuratko D.F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5): 577-598.
  21. Link A.N., Siegel D.S., 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.
  22. Maia C., Claro J. (2013). The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: an exploratory study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(5): 641-650.
  23. Markman G.D., Siegel D.S., Wright M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8): 1401-1423.
  24. O’Connor A. (2013). A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4): 546-563.
  25. Perkmann M., Tartari, V., McKelvey M., Autio E., Broström A., D’Este P., Fini R. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2): 423-442.
  26. Philpott K., Dooley L., O’Reilly C., Lupton G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4): 161-170., 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00051-4DOI: 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00051-4
  27. Porter M. (1998). On competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  28. Rauch A., Hulsink W. (2015). Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act lies: An investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behaviour. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2):187-204.
  29. Siegel D.S., Wright M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: time for a rethink. British Journal of Management, 26(4): 582-595., 10.1111/1467-8551.12116DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12116
  30. Singh J.V., Tucker D.J., House R.J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(2): 171-193., 10.2307/2392787DOI: 10.2307/2392787

Alessandra Colombelli, Elettra D’Amico, Emilio Paolucci, Riccardo Ricci, in "ECONOMIA E SOCIETÀ REGIONALE " 3/2018, pp. 10-27, DOI:10.3280/ES2018-003002

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche