Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

University-industry technology transfer in Canada : an analysis of stakeholders' performance using system dynamics

By José Carlos Alejandro Rodriguez

Abstract

Ce projet de recherche concerne le transfert technologique universitaire vers l'industrie (TTUI) et les pratiques entrepreneuriales au Canada. L'objectif est d'obtenir un aperçu sur le processus du transfert de technologie et de la création d'entreprises dérivées. Une proposition importante dans cette recherche est que le TTUI et la création d'entreprises dérivées sont des phénomènes complexes, alimentés par des boucles de rétroaction et des délais. Cette thèse fait valoir que le TTUI et la création d'entreprises dérivées se développent dans un environnement non commercial. En ce cas, l'incertitude, les lacunes d'information, et le manque de capacités de récepteurs influencent la réussite de lancement des entreprises universitaires, d'où la nécessité de développer une approche dynamique pour investiguer ces phénomènes. D'ailleurs, pour construire un cadre théorique pour l'analyse le TTUI et la création d'entreprises dérivées, cinq modèles sont évalués: le modèle évolutionniste, le modèle de possibilités et des capacités entrepreneuriales, le modèle par étapes de la création d'entreprises dérivées, le modèle de bureau du transfert de technologique (BTT), et le modèle aux moments critiques. Toutefois, les méthodes de la dynamique des systèmes (DS) offrent la possibilité d'évaluer le TTUI et la création d'entreprises dérivées à partir d'une perspective dynamique. En fait, la simulation par la OS permet d'évaluer le changement et ses conséquences pour l'évolution d'un système dans le temps. En fait, le modèle DS développé dans cette recherche analyse les décisions des acteurs en termes de deux différents types de relations qui sont liés par des flux matériaux et monétaires. Au Canada, le processus de TTUI et la création d'entreprises dérivées universitaires peuvent être analysés dans un cadre général qui comprend les BTTs, les entreprises à commercialiser et les entreprises dérivées universitaires. Un modèle théorique est développé instituant une hypothèse dynamique comme explication préliminaire sur ces phénomènes. Ensuite, un scénario de référence et deux autres scénarios alternatifs sont établis à des fins d'évaluation de politiques alternatives. Toutefois, le modèle est calibré et évalué pour la validation en utilisant les données publié par l'Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) et Industrie Canada. Les résultats confirment certains principes déjà discutés dans la littérature. En fait, les résultats obtenus dans cette recherche sont évalués dans la perspective d'une structure alternative de l'environnement et de la politique gouvernementale, ainsi que d'une politique universitaire et de l'organisation. Néanmoins, les conclusions de cette étude suggèrent l'importance des subventions initiales, les sources de financement externes et règles de répartition des revenus dans les universités, ainsi que les caractéristiques qui déterminent la performance des acteurs et donc la voie du transfert de technologie par les universités canadiennes. Toutefois, la contribution principale de cette recherche est le développement d'un modèle dynamique pour évaluer le TTUI et la création d'entreprises dérivées comme un phénomène complexe. \ud ______________________________________________________________________________ \ud MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : transfert technologique, entreprises dérivées universitaires, dynamique des systèmes, Canada

Topics: Création d'entreprise, Entreprise issue de l'essaimage, Dynamique des systèmes, Relation école-industrie, Transfert de technologie, Canada
Year: 2010
OAI identifier: oai:www.archipel.uqam.ca:3627

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (eds.), doi
  2. 1. D. Sterman. 1998. Dynamic modeling doi
  3. 1081-1102.
  4. 1977. Management System
  5. 1989. Verification and validation. A consultant's
  6. 1993. Towards a new economy of
  7. 1994. Economie Benefits Provided to the Province of Alberta by the Faculty of
  8. 1995. Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of doi
  9. 1996. Competence levels within firms: A static and dynamic analysis.
  10. 1996. Patent races and optimal patent breadth and
  11. 1997. Isomorphism in context: The power and prescriptions of institutional doi
  12. 1997. Patents, R&D, and technological spillovers at the firm level: Sorne evidence from econometric count models for panel doi
  13. 1998. High technology spin-offs from governrnent R&D 1aboratories and research doi
  14. 1998. Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In Roger, Noll (Ed.), Challenges ta Research Universities. The Brookings
  15. 2000. Managing academic R&D as a business: Context, structure and doi
  16. 2000. Public research, patents and implications for industrial R&D in the drug, biotechnology, semiconductor and computer
  17. 2000. The Emergence of Simulation in Economie Theorizing and Challenges to Methodological Standards. Working Paper. Centre de Recherche en
  18. 2000. Two-stage patent races and patent
  19. 2001. From initial idea to unique advantage: The entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource doi
  20. 2002. How do university inventions get into doi
  21. 2002. Model Verification and Validation.
  22. 2002. Spinning-off New Ventures from Academic Institutions in Areas with Weak Entrepreneurial Infrastructure. Doctoral Dissertation. Sloan School of doi
  23. 2002. The role of business model in capturing value from doi
  24. 2003. A system dynamies analysis of the Westray mine doi
  25. 2003. Why sorne universities generate more TLO start ups than doi
  26. 2004. A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case ofa research-based doi
  27. 2004. An empirical investigation of the roles of prior knowledge and leaming activities in technology doi
  28. 2004. Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructure for academic spin-off doi
  29. 2004. Technology Transfer at Canadian Universities. Fiscal
  30. 2004a. Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level cvidence from a large European university.
  31. 2004b. The exploitation and complementarities in scientific production process at the laboratory doi
  32. 2005. Assessing the relative performance of UK university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non parametric doi
  33. 2005. Entrepreneurship and university doi
  34. 2005. Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research doi
  35. 2005. The role of academic techno10gy transfer organizations in improving industry-science doi
  36. 2005. Venture capitalist value-added activities, fundraising and doi
  37. 2006. Outcomes of university research in Canada: Innovation policy and indicators of triple helix relationships. Working Paper. The Centre for Innovation
  38. 21: 1271-1300.
  39. 32: 1555-1568.
  40. A. B. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg. 1998. Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of doi
  41. A. N., J. T. Scott, and D. S. Siegel. 2003. The economics of
  42. A., D. Siegel, M. Wright, and M. D. Ensley. 2005. The creation of doi
  43. (2004). Academie entrepreneurs: Social learning and participation in university technology transfer.
  44. (2003). ACTION File Commercialization. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
  45. and doi
  46. and 1. Leydesdorff. 1999. The future location of
  47. and A St.-Pierre. 2002. Effects of R&D spillovers on
  48. and A St.-Pierre. 2006. Industry-university collaboration doi
  49. and A. Lockett. 2001. Academie and surrogate entrepreneurs
  50. and C. Olofsson. 2004. Science parks and the development of NTBFs: doi
  51. and C. Rammer. 2004. Location decisions of spin-offs doi
  52. and D. Smith. 1997. Mapping the doi
  53. and D. Wood. 2002. The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial pelformance: A study of doi
  54. and E. Criss. 1990. A simulation model for evaluating a set of emergency vehicle base locations: doi
  55. and H. Flynn. 2005. Statistical screening doi
  56. and J.
  57. and J. Scott. 2000. Barriers Inhibiting Industry from Patenting with Universities: Evidence from
  58. and J. Senker. 1994. Making sense of diversity: Public-private sector research doi
  59. and J. Silberman. 2003. University technology transfer: Do incentives,
  60. and K. doi
  61. and K. Kim. 2000. Universities and doi
  62. and M. Bordt. 2004. Summary: Meeting on Commercialization Measurement, lndicators, Gaps and Frameworks.
  63. and M. Henrekson. 2003. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization doi
  64. and M. Kenney. 1988. Venture capital financed innovation and technological change doi
  65. and M. Matt. 2006. Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: The importance of doi
  66. and P. Healey. 1998. Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and
  67. and P. Senge. 1980. Tests for building confidence
  68. and R. Burton. 2002. Equity and the technology transfer strategies doi
  69. and R. Grimaldi. 2003. Exploring the networking characteristics of
  70. and R. Grimaldi. 2005. Academies' organizational characteristics and the generation doi
  71. and S. Bagchi-Sen. 2002. A study of R&D, innovation, and business performance in doi
  72. and S. McDaniel. 2004. Summary: Joint Statistics Canada - University of Windsor Workshop on Intellectual Propelty Cornmercialization Indicators.
  73. and S. Stern. 2003. The product market and the market for "ideas": Cornmercialization
  74. and Y. Han. 1995. Economic evaluation of remuneration from doi
  75. and Z. Griliches. 1984. Econometrie models for count data with an application doi
  76. (2004). AUTM Canadian Licensing Survey, doi
  77. (2004). AUTM Canadian Salary Survey, doi
  78. B. D. Wright. 1990. Technology doi
  79. (2003). Business model fashion and the academic spinout firm. doi
  80. Conference.
  81. D. 1995. University-industry entrepreneurship: The organization and management of Arnerican university teclmology
  82. Dosi, G. 1988. Sources, procedures and microeconomic
  83. Doutriaux, 1. 1987. Growth pattern of doi
  84. Doutriaux, 1. 1992. Interaction entre l'environnement universitaire et les premières années des entreprises essaimantes canadiermes.
  85. (1995). Dynamjc count data models of technological innovation. doi
  86. E. Garnsey. 2004. Do academic spin-outs differ and doi
  87. (1962). Economie welfare and the allocation of resources for invention.
  88. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories doi
  89. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of doi
  90. Elfenbein, D. W. 2007. Publications, patents, and the doi
  91. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge- based economic development. doi
  92. Etzkovitz, H. 1989. Entrepreneurial science in the academy: A case
  93. Etzkovitz, H. 1990. The second academic revolution: The role of the research
  94. Etzkovitz, H. 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of
  95. Etzkowitz, H. 1983. Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities doi
  96. (2006). Faculty support for the objectives of university-industry relations versus degree of R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity.
  97. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. doi
  98. Fontes, M. 2001. Biotechnology entrepreneurs and technology transfer doi
  99. Fontes, M. 2005. The process of transformation of scientific and technological knowledge into economic value doi
  100. Ford, D. N. 1999. A behavioral approach to doi
  101. (1996). Formai aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. doi
  102. Forrester, J. W. 1975. A national model for understanding doi
  103. Forrester, J. W. 1994. Policies, Decisions, and
  104. (1999). Fortier Report Public Investments in University Research: Reaping the Benefits. Advisory Council on Science and Technolgy.
  105. (2002). Framework of Agreed Principles on Federally Funded
  106. (1099). G. B., L. O'Neill, and R. Ganeshan. 1998.Validation in simulation:
  107. G. Thursby, and M. C. Thursby. 2003. Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: 'The best we can do with the doi
  108. (1996). Generic Structures: First-Order Linear Positive Feedback.
  109. Goktepe, D. 2008. A Theoretical Framework for Understanding University Inventors and
  110. Goldfarb, B. 2001. The effect of govenunent
  111. Granstrand, O. 1999. The Economies and doi
  112. (1998). Guide for the Verification and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
  113. Hagedoorn, 1. 1990. Organizational models of inter-firm doi
  114. Hall, P. Josty, S. Matos, and A. Jacobson. 2006. Indicators doi
  115. Hane!, P. 2001. Current intellectual protection practices by
  116. Hane!, P. 2004. Intellectual property rights business management practices: A survey of literature.
  117. (2007). Harnessing Success: Determinants of University Technology Licensing Performance.
  118. Heirman, A., and B. Clarysse. 2004. How and why do research-based start-ups doi
  119. Hellmann, T. 2005. The Role of
  120. Hellstrom, T., and M. Jacob. 2003. Boundary doi
  121. Higher
  122. Hindle, K., and 1. Yencken. 2004. Public research commercialisation, entrepreneurship and doi
  123. Hoppe, H. C.,
  124. Hughes, A. 2006. University-lndustry Linkages and
  125. in doi
  126. (1999). Industrializing knowledge: University-industry linkages in Japan and the United Sates.
  127. (1999). Industrializing Knowledge.
  128. Industry Canada. 1999b. The Commercialization of University Research in Canada: A
  129. Industry Canada. 2002. Achieving Excellence, Investing in People, Knowledge,
  130. (2001). Industry-university cooperative research centers.
  131. Information
  132. ink, A. N. 2005. Economie
  133. (2003). Innovation and Knowledge Creation in an Open Economy: Canadian Industry and International Implications. Cambridge: doi
  134. (2006). Institutional changes and the cortunercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities' patenting activities between 1965-2002. Research Policy doi
  135. (2000). Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. doi
  136. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on managing knowledge in organizations: Creating, retaining, and transfening knowledge. doi
  137. J. C. Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and doi
  138. Jaffe, A. B. 1986. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence
  139. Jaffe, A. B. 2000. The U.S. patent system in doi
  140. Jaffe, A. B., and J. Lerner. 2001. Reinventing public R&D: Patent policy doi
  141. Jaffe, A. B., and M. Trajtenberg. 2002. Patents, Citations and
  142. Jensen, R., and M. C. Thursby. 2001. Proofs and prototypes doi
  143. K., D. Pfahl, and V. Garousi. 2008. Calibrating a Customizable System Dynamics Simulation
  144. Kazanjian, R. K. 1988. Relation of dominant problems to doi
  145. Kazanjian, R. K., and R. Drain. 1989. An empirical test
  146. Khazanchi, D. 1996. A
  147. Kingsley, G., and H. Klein. 1998. Interfirm collaboration as a
  148. Kirkwood, C. W. 1998. System
  149. Klofsten, M., and D. Jones-Evans. 2000. Comparing academic entreprenemship in doi
  150. Kortum, S., and 1. Lerner. 1999. What doi
  151. Kortum, S., and J. Lerner. 2000. Assessing doi
  152. Laamanen, T., and E. Autio. 1996. Dominant dynamic complementarities and
  153. Lach, S., and M. Schankerman. 2003. Incentives and invention in universities. doi
  154. Lambert, R. 2003.
  155. Landry, R., 1. Rherrad, and N. Amara. 2005. The Determinants of University Spin Offs: Evidence doi
  156. Landry, R., N. Amara, and M. Saïhi. 2007. Patenting and spin-off creation
  157. Lane, D. C. et al.
  158. Langinier, c., and G. Moschini. 2002. The economics of patents: An overview.
  159. Lazaric, N., and A. Raybaut. 2005. Knowledge, hierarchy and the doi
  160. Lee, doi
  161. Lee, Y. S., and R. Gaertner. 1994. Technology transfer from university to doi
  162. Leitch, C. M., and R. 1. HalTison. 2005. Maximising the potential of
  163. Lemer, 1.,
  164. Lerner, 1.,
  165. Lerner, 1., and S. Kortum. doi
  166. Lerner, J. 2005. The university
  167. Levin, S., and P. Stephan. 1991. Research
  168. Liljemark, 1. 2004. Innovation Policy in Canada: Strategy and Realities.
  169. Lin, M. W., and B. Bozeman. 2006. Researchers' industry experience and productivity in university-industry doi
  170. Lindelof, P., and H. LOfsten. 2004. Proximity as a resource doi
  171. Link, A. N., and J. T. Scott. 2005. Opening the ivory tower's door: An analysis of the determinants doi
  172. Link, A. N., and N. Vonortas. 2002. Participation
  173. Link, A. N., D. S. Siegel, and B. Bozeman. 2007. An empirical analysis of the doi
  174. Littlefield.
  175. Livingstone,
  176. (1043). Lockett, A. D., and M. Wright. 2005. Resources, doi
  177. Lockett, A. D., M. Wright, doi
  178. LOfsten, H., and P. LindelOf. 2005. R&D networks and product innovation doi
  179. Lord, C. 2005. Contribution de la Dynamique des Systèmes a l'Informatisation du
  180. M., M. Lundqvist, and H. Hellsmark. 2003. Entrepreneurial transformation in doi
  181. Maher. 2004. Innovation, competition, standards and intellectual property: Policy perspectives from economics doi
  182. Mimeo.
  183. (2005). Momentum: The
  184. of
  185. ON.
  186. (2001). Optimal Incentives for Income-Generation within Universities. doi
  187. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State University.
  188. (2001). Organizational structure as detelminants of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, John Hopkins, and Penn State Universities.
  189. Paper. doi
  190. (1996). Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. doi
  191. (2002). Putting patents in contcxt: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. doi
  192. R. C Terra. 2000. The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory doi
  193. R. P. Morgan. 2001. Contributions ofacademic research to industrial performance
  194. R., N. Amara, and M. Ouimet. 2006. Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian
  195. Report.
  196. Sector,
  197. Souitaris. 2008. Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for doi
  198. Statistics
  199. (1989). Strategie change: The effect of founding and history. doi
  200. (2000). Strategy and structure as detenninants of academic patent and licensing behavior. Paper prepared for conference Organizational Issues in
  201. (2000). Technology transfer and public po1icy: A review of research and policy. doi
  202. (2003). Technology Transfer and the Academie Department: Who Participates and Why? Working Paper. Rotman School of Management.
  203. Technology transfer revisted from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy.
  204. (1989). Tests of model behavior that can detect structural f1aws: Demonstrations with simulation experiments.
  205. (2007). The Academie Technology Transfer Landscape in Canada and Quebec in Particular.
  206. (2005). The Determinants of Faculty Patenting Behavior: Demographies or Opportunities? NBER Working Paper.
  207. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource based theory. doi
  208. (1992). The licensing of patents under asymmetric information. doi
  209. (1969). The Organization of Economie Activity: Issues Pertinent to the Choice of Market Versus Nonmarket Allocation.
  210. (2001). The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation. doi
  211. (2001). The resource based view: 10 years after doi
  212. (1998). Universities as research joint venture partners: Does the size of the venture matter? doi
  213. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees versus equity positions.
  214. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. doi
  215. (1991). University Spin-Off Companies. Savage Rowman &
  216. University-Industrial
  217. (2002). Venture capital in Europe and the financing of innovative companies. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.