literature review of technology transfer

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The success of technology transfer in the industry 4.0 era: a systematic literature review.

1. Introduction

2. systematic literature review method, search methodology, 3. factors affect the success of the technology transfer for i4.0, 3.1. industry 4.0 technology transfer relation, 3.2. excellence and innovation centers, 3.3. technology transfer in the 4.0 industrial revolution, and open innovation, 3.4. manufacturing culture, 3.5. human capital technical experience, 3.6. legal protection, 4. industry 4.0 technology transfer models and conceptual framework, 4.1. industry 4.0 technology transfer models, 4.2. the conceptual framework for industry 4.0 technology transfer.

• Government support: This support might be in the form of financial, strategic, incentive, or a combination of these. According to [ 62 ], government programs and funding can play a significant role in lowering organizational adoption barriers, and one of the recommendations is that the U.S. government should develop a smart manufacturing adoption plan.
• Modern legal tools: The legal tools need to match the new technologies related to I4.0 and support the technology transfer process.
• Connection with the innovation framework: this will facilitate the adoption of I4.0 technology. Lack of awareness was one of the barriers to the adaptation of big data and artificial intelligence [ 62 ]. To overcome adoption challenges, innovation will assist in raising awareness of I4.0 technologies.
• This dimension interacts with the transfer agent, recipient, and media.

5. Conclusions

• The government plays a significant role in encouraging the industry to strive towards I4.0 through technology transfer. The government can facilitate the transition toward I4.0 via technology transfer by enacting legislation, financing support, and offering incentives for this transition.
• A more collaborative environment must be established to enhance the effectiveness of the technology transfer process. The type and level of collaboration between technology recipients, technology agents, and inventors are required for I4.0 technology transfer. Collaborations that begin before submitting a patent application are more likely to succeed in marketing and selling inventions.
• Under I4.0, the role of universities in economic growth has shifted dramatically. Universities’ duties extend beyond the commercialization of inventions to include the transfer of knowledge and skills. Universities are considered the main engine of economic development.
• The source of this technology is critical. Excellence innovation centers and laboratories support the industry (especially SMEs) in transitioning to I4.0.
• Dynamic open innovation and open innovation culture are the most effective ways to address I4.0. Technology commercialization, aided by open innovation, enhances the likelihood of commercialization via technology transfer.
• The I4.0 technology transfer environment is complex and multidisciplinary. The skills and expertise of related employees in TTO directly impact the technology transfer process of I4.0 technologies. The more availability of the skills and knowledge, the better the performance. Furthermore, the TTO requires a financial incentive structure to motivate inventors to participate and follow up on innovation commercialization. Incentives are one of the essential aspects in motivating individuals to perform harder.
• Manufacturing culture influences the success of I4.0 technology transfer when we focus on technological advancements such as the transition to I4.0. It is vital to make quicker and more effective choices, to collaborate between departments and groups, to have a clear strategy, and to have appropriately trained staff. Consequently, employee adoption of the technology will increase, as will employee uncertainty.
• The legal tools available to protect the I4.0 technologies are inadequate. A modern legal tool is required to cover the intangibles technology with IP. These tools should have better suited for rapidly evolving technologies.
• New technologies establish a new ecosystem with new practices and tactics for securing and commercializing IP. This will facilitate the adoption of I4.0 technology.

Author Contributions

Institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, conflicts of interest.

• Zheng, T.; Ardolino, M.; Bacchetti, A.; Perona, M. The applications of Industry 4.0 technologies in manufacturing context: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021 , 59 , 1922–1954. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suwanan, A.F.; Rori, A.M.; Kurniawan, D.T. The critical review of agriculture technological transfer in the era of decentralization. E3S Web Conf. 2021 , 306 , 03021. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ammar, M.; Haleem, A.; Javaid, M.; Walia, R.; Bahl, S. Improving material quality management and manufacturing organizations system through Industry 4.0 technologies. Mater. Today Proc. 2021 , 45 , 5089–5096. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rojko, A. Industry 4.0 Concept: Background and Overview. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2017 , 11 , 77–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Weyer, S.; Schmitt, M.; Ohmer, M.; Gorecky, D. Towards Industry 4.0-Standardization as the crucial challenge for highly modular, multi-vendor production systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2015 , 48 , 579–584. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Veile, J.W.; Kiel, D.; Müller, J.M.; Voigt, K.-I. Lessons learned from Industry 4.0 implementation in the German manufacturing industry. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019 , 31 , 977–997. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Angelopoulou, A.; Mykoniatis, K.; Boyapati, N.R. Industry 4.0: The use of simulation for human reliability assessment. Procedia Manufactur. 2020 , 42 , 296–301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mykoniatis, K.; Angelopoulou, A.; Proctor, M.D.; Karwowski, W. Virtual humans for interpersonal and communication skills’ training in crime investigations. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Designing and Developing Virtual and Augmented Environments ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 282–292. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mykoniatis, K.; Shirzaei, S.; Katsigiannis, M.; Panagopoulos, A.A.; Deb, S.; Potter, T.; Angelopoulou, A. Society 5.0: A Simulation Study of Self Checkout Operations in a Grocery Store. In Proceedings of the 32nd European Modeling & Simulation Symposium, Virtual. 16–18 September 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mykoniatis, K.; Harris, G.A. A digital twin emulator of a modular production system using a data-driven hybrid modeling and simulation approach. J. Intell. Manuf. 2021 , 32 , 1899–1911. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Etzkowitz, H.; Zhou, C. Licensing life: The evolution of Stanford university’s technology transfer practice. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021 , 168 , 120764. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McDevitt, V.L.; Mendez-Hinds, J.; Winwood, D.; Nijhawan, V.; Sherer, T.; Ritter, J.F.; Sanberg, P.R. More than money: The exponential impact of academic technology transfer. Technol. Innov. 2014 , 16 , 75–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mubarak, M.F.; Petraite, M. Industry 4.0 technologies, digital trust and technological orientation: What matters in open innovation? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020 , 161 , 120332. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sachpazidu-Wojcicka, K. Open Innovation Process via Technology Transfer and Organizational Innovation. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2020 , XXIII , 52–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Audretsch, D.B.; Lehmann, E.E.; Paleari, S.; Vismara, S. Entrepreneurial finance and technology transfer. J. Technol. Transf. 2014 , 41 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scanlon, E.; Taylor, J. Is technology enhanced learning an interdisciplinary activity? In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning, Lancaster, UK, 9–11 May 2016; pp. 129–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, K.-J.; Ohta, T.; Kakehi, K. Formal boundary spanning by industry liaison offices and the changing pattern of university–industry cooperative research: The case of the University of Tokyo. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 2010 , 22 , 189–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chandra, G.R.; Liaqat, I.A. Commercialization of Intellectual Property; an Insight for Technocrats. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Automation, Computational and Technology Management (ICACTM), London, UK, 24–26 April 2019; pp. 373–378. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smit, J.; Kreutzer, S.; Moeller, C.; Carlberg, M. Industry 4.0. European Parliament. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/570007/IPOL_STU(2016)570007_EN.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2022).
• Leaders, Y.G. World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2016 Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Available online: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_AM16_Report.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2022).
• Bozeman, B. Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Res. Policy 2000 , 29 , 627–655. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silva, V.L.; Kovaleski, J.L.; Pagani, R.N. Technology transfer and human capital in the industrial 4.0 scenario: A theoretical study. Future Stud. Res. J. Trends Strateg. 2019 , 11 , 102–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Beharry, A.K.; Fai Pun, K. Contextual Analysis of Innovation Process Models toward the Fourth Industrial Revolution. West Indian J. Eng. 2020 , 43 , 43–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alabi, M.O.; de Beer, D.J.; Wichers, H.; Kloppers, C.P. Framework for effective additive manufacturing education: A case study of South African universities. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2020 , 26 , 801–826. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tan, R.R. Establishing technology transfer infrastructure as a strategy for promoting manufacturing automation in Taiwan. Technovation 1995 , 15 , 407–421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferrario, A. Design, Development and Applications of a Learning Factory at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland. Doctoral Thesis, Università Degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italy, May 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simachev, Y.; Fedyunina, A.; Yurevich, M.; Kuzyk, M.; Gorodny, N. New Strategic Approaches to Gaining from Emerging Advanced Manufacturing Markets. Фopcaйm 2021 , 15 , 6–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kushnirenko, O.; Gakhovich, N.; Venger, L. The Impact of Industry 4.0 Technologies on Structural Transformation in the Manufacturing. SHS Web Conf. 2021 , 100 , 01009. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yun, J.J.; Jeong, E.; Lee, Y.; Kim, K. The Effect of Open Innovation on Technology Value and Technology Transfer: A Comparative Analysis of the Automotive, Robotics, and Aviation Industries of Korea. Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 2459. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Yildirim, N.; Tuncalp, D. A Policy Design Framework on the Roles of S&T Universities in Innovation Ecosystems: Integrating Stakeholders’ Voices for Industry 4.0. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2021 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kochetkov, D.; Larionova, V. The Changing Role of Universities in Economic Growth. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Jyvaskyla, Finland, 15–16 September 2016; pp. 389–397. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kashyap, A.; Agrawal, R. Academia a new knowledge supplier to the industry! Uncovering barriers in the process. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2019 , 16 , 715–733. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Da Silva, V.L.; Kovaleski, J.L.; Pagani, R.N.; Silva, J.D.M.; Corsi, A. Implementation of Industry 4.0 concept in companies: Empirical evidences. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2020 , 33 , 325–342. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinilla, L.S.; Rodríguez, R.L.; Gandarias, N.T.; de Lacalle, L.N.L.; Farokhad, M.R. TRLs 5–7 Advanced Manufacturing Centres, Practical Model to Boost Technology Transfer in Manufacturing. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 4890. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kruger, S.; Steyn, A.A. Enhancing technology transfer through entrepreneurial development: Practices from innovation spaces. J. Technol. Transf. 2020 , 45 , 1655–1689. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schumann, M.; Leye, S.; Popov, A. Virtual Reality Models and Digital Engineering Solutions for Technology Transfer. Appl. Comput. Syst. 2015 , 17 , 27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Rong, K.; Lin, Y.; Yu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Radziwon, A. Exploring regional innovation ecosystems: An empirical study in China. Ind. Innov. 2021 , 28 , 545–569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vidmar, M.; Rosiello, A.; Vermeulen, N.; Williams, R.; Dines, J. New Space and Agile Innovation: Understanding transition to open innovation by examining innovation networks and moments. Acta Astronaut. 2020 , 167 , 122–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, N. The power of power in supplier-retailer relationships. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2005 , 34 , 863. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scuotto, V.; Beatrice, O.; Valentina, C.; Nicotra, M.; Di Gioia, L.; Briamonte, M.F. Uncovering the micro-foundations of knowledge sharing in open innovation partnerships: An intention-based perspective of technology transfer. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020 , 152 , 119906. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shamsuzzoha, A.; Al-Kindi, M.; Al-Hinai, N. Open innovation in small and medium size enterprises-perspective from virtual collaboration. Int. J. Eng. Technol. Innov. 2018 , 8 , 173–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, M.; Yun, J.J.; Pyka, A.; Won, D.; Kodama, F.; Schiuma, G.; Park, H.; Jeon, J.; Park, K.; Jung, K. How to respond to the fourth industrial revolution, or the second information technology revolution? Dynamic new combinations between technology, market, and society through open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018 , 4 , 21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Baierle, I.C.; Siluk, J.C.M.; Gerhardt, V.J.; Michelin, C.d.F.; Junior, Á.L.N.; Nara, E.O.B. Worldwide Innovation and Technology Environments: Research and Future Trends Involving Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021 , 7 , 229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al Amri, T.; Puskas Khetani, K.; Marey-Perez, M. Towards Sustainable I4.0: Key Skill Areas for Project Managers in GCC Construction Industry. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 8121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hermann, M.; Pentek, T.; Otto, B. Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2016; pp. 3928–3937. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fukawa, N.; Zhang, Y.; Erevelles, S. Dynamic capability and open-source strategy in the age of digital transformation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021 , 7 , 175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henriques, C.; Viseu, C.; Neves, M.; Amaro, A.; Gouveia, M.; Trigo, A. How Efficiently Does the EU Support Research and Innovation in SMEs? J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022 , 8 , 92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sutopo, W.; Astuti, R.W.; Suryandari, R.T. Accelerating a technology commercialization; with a discussion on the relation between technology transfer efficiency and open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019 , 5 , 95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Nylund, P.A.; Brem, A. Do open innovation and dominant design foster digital innovation? Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2021 , 25 , 2150098. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grabowska, S.; Saniuk, S. Development of Business Models in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Conditions in the Context of Empirical Research on Worldwide Scope Companies Located in Poland. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022 , 8 , 86. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sugiharti, L.; Yasin, M.Z.; Purwono, R.; Esquivias, M.A.; Pane, D. The FDI Spillover Effect on the Efficiency and Productivity of Manufacturing Firms: Its Implication on Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022 , 8 , 99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hizam-Hanafiah, M.; Soomro, M.A. The situation of technology companies in industry 4.0 and the open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021 , 7 , 34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jaruzelski, B.; Schwartz, K.; Staack, V. Innovation’s new world order. Strategy + Bus. 2015 , 27 , 81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bogers, M.; Chesbrough, H.; Heaton, S.; Teece, D.J. Strategic management of open innovation: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2019 , 62 , 77–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gertler, M.S. Manufacturing Culture: The Institutional Geography of Industrial Practice ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bole, D. ‘What is industrial culture anyway?’ Theoretical framing of the concept in economic geography. Geogr. Compass 2021 , 15 , e12595. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ituarte, I.F.; Khajavi, S.H.; Partanen, J. Challenges to implementing additive manufacturing in globalised production environments. Int. J. Collab. Enterp. 2016 , 5 , 232–247. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Müller, J.M. Assessing the barriers to Industry 4.0 implementation from a workers’ perspective. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2019 , 52 , 2189–2194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gunawardana, K.D.; Jungthirapanich, C. Quantitative measurement of advanced manufacturing technology transfer from foreign-based companies to local companies. SSRN Electron. J. 2012 , 2 , 2171518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bhatt, N. Forecasting the Implementation Success of AMT in SMEs using an Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Approach. Glob. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2016 , 8 , 18–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Efstathiades, A.; Tassou, S.A.; Oxinos, G.; Antoniou, A. Advanced manufacturing technology transfer and implementation in developing countries: The case of the Cypriot manufacturing industry. Technovation 2000 , 20 , 93–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peters, C.; Yarbrough, A.; Harris, G. Smart Manufacturing Adoption Study. Available online: https://www.eng.auburn.edu/news/2022/07/icams-embarks-on-five-year-smart-manufacturing-adoption-study.html (accessed on 17 October 2022).
• Kovaleski, F.; Picinin, C.T.; Kovaleski, J.L. The Challenges of Technology Transfer in the Industry 4.0 Era Regarding Anthropotechnological Aspects: A Systematic Review. SAGE Open 2022 , 12 , 21582440221111104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Soares, M.N.; Kauffman, M.E. Industry 4.0: Horizontal Integration and Intellectual Property Law Strategies In England. Rev. Opinião Jurídica 2018 , 16 , 268–289. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chih-Yi, S.; Bou-Wen, L. Attack and defense in patent-based competition: A new paradigm of strategic decision-making in the era of the fourth industrial revolution. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021 , 167 , 120670. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, Y.; Porter, A.L.; Cunningham, S.W.; Robinson, D.K.; Liu, J.; Zhu, D. A technology delivery system for characterizing the supply side of technology emergence: Illustrated for Big Data & Analytics. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018 , 130 , 165–176. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, S.; Kim, W.; Kim, Y.M.; Oh, K.J. Using AHP to determine intangible priority factors for technology transfer adoption. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012 , 39 , 6388–6395. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bliznets, I.A.y.; Kartskhiya, A.A.; Smirnov, M.G. Technology transfer in digital era: Legal environment. J. Hist. Cult. Art Res. 2018 , 7 , 354–363. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bozeman, B.; Rimes, H.; Youtie, J. The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Res. Policy 2015 , 44 , 34–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borge, L.; Bröring, S. Exploring effectiveness of technology transfer in interdisciplinary settings: The case of the bioeconomy. Creativity Innov. Manag. 2017 , 26 , 311–322. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Khaza’aleh, R.J.; Abbasi, G.Y.; Alahmer, A.I. Project managers’ motivation in the Jordanian construction industries. Int. J. Proj. Organ. Manag. 2016 , 8 , 348–365. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shurrab, M.; Abbasi, G.; Al Khazaleh, R. Evaluating the effect of motivational dimensions on the construction project managers in Jordan. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2018 , 25 , 412–424. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Alkhazaleh, R.; Mykoniatis, K.; Alahmer, A. The Success of Technology Transfer in the Industry 4.0 Era: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022 , 8 , 202. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040202

Alkhazaleh R, Mykoniatis K, Alahmer A. The Success of Technology Transfer in the Industry 4.0 Era: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity . 2022; 8(4):202. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040202

Alkhazaleh, Razan, Konstantinos Mykoniatis, and Ali Alahmer. 2022. "The Success of Technology Transfer in the Industry 4.0 Era: A Systematic Literature Review" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 8, no. 4: 202. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040202

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Technology Transfer: A Literature Review

• Related Documents

Approaches, success factors, and barriers for technology transfer in software engineering-Results of a systematic literature review

Absorptive capacity approach to technology transfer at corporate accelerators: a systematic literature review, the impact of technology transfer and knowledge spillover from big science: a literature review, a systematic literature review on technology transfer from university to industry, knowledge based view of university tech transfer—a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Research and technology commercialization at research-intensive universities has helped to develop provincial economies resulting in university startups, the growth of other new companies and associated employment. University technology transfer offices (TTOs) oversee the process of technology transfer into the commercial marketplace and these organizational units can be considered in the context of enabling effective knowledge management. However, what enables productive TTO performance has not been comprehensively researched. Therefore, this research study adopted the knowledge-based view as the theoretical construct to support a comprehensive investigation into this area. This was achieved through employing a systematic literature review (SLR) combined with a robust meta-analysis. The SLR identified an initial total of 10,126 articles in the first step of the review process, with 44 studies included in the quantitative synthesis, and 29 quantitative empirical studies selected for the meta-analysis. The research study identified that the relationship between TTO knowledge management and knowledge deployment as well as startup business performance is where TTOs secure the strongest returns.

Validation of a Multiparametric, High-Content-Screening Assay for Predictive/Investigative Cytotoxicity: Evidence from Technology Transfer Studies and Literature Review

Benchmarking supply chains by analyzing technology transfer critical barriers using ahp approach.

Purpose – Technology transfer becoming an important area especially in developing and less developed countries. The purpose of this paper is to address issue of supply chains’ benchmarking based upon their capability to mange technology transfer critical barriers mitigation efforts toward making technology transfer process implementation successful. Design/methodology/approach – The present paper is based on two research stages. Initially, extensive literature review has been made to identify critical barriers. In total, 20 technology transfer critical barriers have been identified from literature review and categorized in to six criteria. In second stage, analytics hierarchy process has been utilized to rank the critical barriers of technology transfer in supply chain and provide a benchmarking framework. Findings – Political barriers (PB) have been analyzed most significant criteria of critical barriers to technology transfer followed by socio-cultural barriers (SO) and economic barriers (EB). “Political instability,” “Difficulty in transfer and diffusion,” “Too expensive,” “Inappropriate/incompetent technology and resource wastage in technologies imported,” “Inactive role of SC members and resistance to change” and “Management attitude” have been found most hindering barrier in their respective category/criterion of technology transfer barriers. Research limitations/implications – Scope of the present study has been limited to propose framework to benchmark supply chains by analyzing 20 critical barriers of technology transfer grouped in to six dimensions using analytical hierarchy approach based on “ratings provided by experts,” which may be biased. Practical implications – Benchmarking process has been proposed to calculate value of total of overall weights to a particular supply chain named as “Technology Transfer Barriers Mitigation Index (TTBMI)” useful to present capability of supply chains to manage technology transfer barriers by a single numeric value. From “provider” developed county’s view point, present benchmarking framework may be further applied to compare developing countries’ ability to absorb and diffuse new technology. Originality/value – Benchmarking procedure has been dealt with using well-established methodology- analytical hierarchy process toward providing single numeric value index (TTBMI) indicating ability of supply chains to manage/mitigate technology transfer barriers.

Technology transfer in China: literature review and policy implications

A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: toward a research agenda, technology transfer in the supply chain oriented to industry 4.0: a literature review, export citation format, share document.

• DOI: 10.1111/radm.12228
• Corpus ID: 157168462

A Systematic Literature Review of University Technology Transfer from a Quadruple Helix Perspective: Toward a Research Agenda

• Kristel Miller , R. McAdam , M. McAdam
• Published 1 January 2018
• Engineering, Education
• ERPN: Economic Development & Technological Change (Topic)

262 Citations

Quadruple helix as a network of relationships: creating value within a swedish regional innovation system, defining functional roles for research institutions in helix innovation networks, co-shaping the future in quadruple helix innovation systems: uncovering public preferences toward participatory research and innovation, fostering fashion ecosystems: a quadruple helix-based model for european sustainable innovation, quadruple helix models for sustainable regional innovation: engaging and facilitating civil society participation, regional sustainable development using a quadruple helix approach in japan, triple helix futures, macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer, technological transfer and spillovers within the ris3 entrepreneurial ecosystems: a quadruple helix approach, 110 references, the quintuple helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation, gauging readiness for the quadruple helix: a study of 16 european organizations.

• Highly Influential

The Innovating Region: Toward a Theory of Knowledge-Based Regional Development

Innovation in creative industries: from the quadruple helix model to the systems theory, the development of university technology transfer stakeholder relationships at a regional level: lessons for the future, reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems, entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development, regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: exploring 'globalisation 2'--a new model of industry organisation, the changing university business model: a stakeholder perspective.

• 11 Excerpts

A Triple Helix of University—Industry—Government Relations

Related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

What Is a Technology Transfer Agreement?

A technology transfer agreement is a formal contract that facilitates the exchange of intellectual property, proficiency, and resources between organizations, enabling the efficient transfer of knowledge, skills, and technologies from one organization to another. This agreement plays a crucial part in fostering innovation by bridging the gap between innovation hubs and the market. It stimulates innovation, drives economic growth, and creates new opportunities for businesses and individuals. By understanding the intricacies of technology transfer agreements, organizations can tap new potential and catalyze regional development. Explore further to uncover the key components, benefits, and nuances of these agreements.

Table of Contents

Understanding Technology Transfer Agreements

Embracing a vital part in the commercialization of innovative ideas, technology transfer agreements facilitate the exchange of intellectual property, proficiency, and resources between organizations. These agreements play a vital part in fostering innovation by bridging the gap between innovation hubs and the market. In today's rapidly evolving technology landscape, technology transfer agreements enable the efficient transfer of knowledge, skills, and technologies from one organization to another. This exchange stimulates innovation, drives economic growth, and creates new opportunities for businesses and individuals alike. By facilitating the flow of ideas and expertise, technology transfer agreements help to accelerate the commercialization of new technologies, products, and services. In fundamental terms, these agreements provide a framework for collaboration, enabling organizations to leverage each other's strengths and proficiency to drive innovation and growth. As a consequence, technology transfer agreements have become a vital component of the innovation ecosystem, fostering a culture of collaboration and driving progress in various fields.

Key Components of the Agreement

A well-structured technology transfer agreement typically comprises several crucial components that outline the terms, conditions, and obligations of the partnership, providing a clear understanding between the parties involved. These components form the foundation of the agreement structure, solidifying a thorough and enforceable contract.

The agreement structure typically includes contract clauses that address key aspects of the partnership, such as intellectual property rights, confidentiality, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The contract clauses provide a clear framework for the collaboration, outlining the responsibilities and obligations of each party, as well as the terms of technology transfer, including licensing, royalties, and territorial rights. Additionally, the agreement may include provisions for termination, warranties, and indemnification.

A well-drafted technology transfer agreement is imperative for a successful partnership, as it provides a clear understanding of the parties' obligations and minimizes the risk of disputes. By incorporating these indispensable components, the agreement establishes a mutually beneficial partnership that fosters innovation and collaboration.

Benefits of Technology Transfer

The benefits of technology transfer are multifaceted, yielding significant advantages for organizations and economies alike. By leveraging innovative technologies, companies can enhance their competitive advantage, thereby improving their market position and profitability. In addition, technology transfer can also stimulate economic growth by creating new opportunities, fostering innovation, and increasing productivity.

Improved Competitive Advantage

By leveraging technology transfer, companies can leapfrog competitors, catapulting themselves to the forefront of their respective industries. This strategic move enables businesses to stay ahead of the curve, responding effectively to shifting market trends and industry insights. Through technology transfer, companies gain access to cutting-edge innovations, allowing them to refine their product offerings, enhance operational efficiency, and bolster their competitive stance.

Increased Economic Growth

Economic growth accelerates when technology transfer facilitates the diffusion of innovative ideas, sparking a multiplier effect that resonates throughout the economy. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced when technology transfer agreements attract foreign investment, which can inject new capital, skills, and knowledge into regional economies.

• Regional Development : Technology transfer can catalyze regional development by creating new industries, jobs, and opportunities, thereby reducing regional disparities and promoting more balanced economic growth.
• Foreign Investment : Attracting foreign investment through technology transfer agreements can increase economic growth by providing access to new markets, technologies, and management practices.
• Multiplier Effect : The multiplier effect of technology transfer can lead to increased economic growth by stimulating local demand, creating new industries, and fostering entrepreneurship and innovation.

Types of Technology Transfer

Technology transfer can occur through various arrangements, each with its unique characteristics and benefits. Three primary types of technology transfer are commonly employed: license agreements, joint ventures, and research collaborations. These distinct approaches enable parties to tailor their technology transfer strategies to suit specific business objectives and intellectual property requirements.

License Agreements

A license agreement, a widely used mechanism for transferring technology, grants the licensee the right to exploit the licensor's intellectual property in exchange for royalties or other forms of compensation. This type of agreement allows the licensee to employ the licensor's technology, know-how, or other intellectual property, while the licensor retains ownership and control over the intellectual property.

License agreements can be tailored to meet the specific needs of the parties involved. For instance:

• Exclusive rights : The licensee may be granted exclusive rights to use the technology, preventing the licensor from licensing it to other parties.
• Royalty rates : The agreement may stipulate the royalty rate to be paid by the licensee to the licensor for each unit of production or sale.
• Territorial restrictions : The agreement may limit the geographic region in which the licensee is permitted to use the technology.

In a license agreement, the licensor typically provides technical assistance and support to facilitate the licensee's successful implementation of the technology. The agreement may also include provisions for dispute resolution, confidentiality, and termination. Overall, license agreements offer a flexible and effective means of technology transfer, allowing parties to collaborate and share intellectual property while protecting their interests.

Joint Ventures

In addition to licensing arrangements, joint ventures provide another avenue for technology transfer, allowing partners to collaborate and share resources, risks, and rewards in the development and commercialization of new technologies. This type of technology transfer enables business partners to form strategic alliances, combining their proficiency and resources to achieve common goals. Joint ventures facilitate the sharing of intellectual property, know-how, and other proprietary information, enabling partners to accelerate innovation and reduce the time-to-market for new products or services. By pooling their resources, partners can mitigate risks, reduce costs, and increase their competitive advantage. Joint ventures can take various forms, including equity-based partnerships, contractual agreements, or hybrid structures. Effective joint ventures require careful planning, negotiation, and management to certify that the partnership remains aligned with the goals and objectives of all parties involved. When executed properly, joint ventures can be a powerful tool for technology transfer, driving innovation and growth for all partners involved.

Research Collaborations

Through research collaborations, organizations can leverage the proficiency and resources of multiple stakeholders to advance knowledge and accelerate innovation, leading to the development of new technologies and products. This type of technology transfer involves partnerships between academia, industry, and government to facilitate the exchange of knowledge, skills, and resources. Research collaborations can take various forms, including:

• Academic Partnerships : Collaborations between universities and industry partners to develop new technologies and products, leveraging the proficiency of both parties.
• Interdisciplinary Approaches : Partnerships that bring together specialists from diverse fields to tackle complex problems and develop innovative solutions.
• Joint Research Initiatives : Collaborations between multiple organizations to conduct joint research projects, sharing resources and proficiency to achieve common goals.

Research collaborations can accelerate the development of new technologies and products, facilitating the transfer of knowledge and skills between partners. By pooling resources and proficiency, organizations can overcome technical challenges, reduce costs, and accelerate the development of innovative solutions.

Negotiating Technology Transfer Terms

Each party to a technology transfer agreement must carefully negotiate the terms to secure that their interests are protected and their goals are achieved. Negotiating technology transfer terms is a critical phase that requires meticulous attention to detail and a deep understanding of the parties' objectives. Deal breakers, such as conflicting expectations or unmet demands, can arise if the negotiation process is not undertaken with caution.

Cultural differences can also pose significant challenges, particularly when parties from diverse backgrounds engage in international technology transfer agreements. It is vital to acknowledge and address these differences to avoid misunderstandings and facilitate a successful collaboration. Effective communication, flexibility, and a willingness to compromise are crucial in traversing the complexities of technology transfer negotiations. A well-negotiated agreement can facilitate a mutually beneficial partnership, while a poorly negotiated agreement can lead to disputes and failed collaborations. By recognizing the importance of negotiation in technology transfer agreements, parties can secure a successful and profitable partnership.

Intellectual Property Protection

Effective intellectual property protection is a critical component of technology transfer agreements, as it safeguards the proprietary rights of the licensor and guarantees the licensee's compliance with the agreed-upon terms. This protection is especially crucial in technology transfer agreements, where intellectual property is often the most valuable asset being transferred.

To ensure adequate protection, the agreement should address the following key aspects of intellectual property protection:

• Patent Law : The agreement should specify the patent rights being transferred, including the scope of the patent, the territory in which it is valid, and the duration of the patent.
• Trademark Issues : The agreement should address the use of trademarks, including the licensing of trademarks, and the obligations of the licensee to maintain the quality of the goods or services bearing the trademark.
• Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure : The agreement should include provisions to protect confidential information and trade secrets, including the obligations of the licensee to maintain confidentiality and the consequences of breaching confidentiality.

Managing Risks and Disputes

In addition to protecting intellectual property, a thorough technology transfer agreement must also provide a framework for managing risks and resolving disputes that may arise during the term of the agreement. This framework should include provisions for risk evaluation, dispute resolution, and termination or termination consequences.

Effective risk evaluation involves identifying potential risks and developing strategies to mitigate them. This includes evaluating the likelihood and potential impact of risks related to technology transfer, such as intellectual property infringement, confidentiality breaches, or non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

A well-structured technology transfer agreement should provide a clear framework for managing risks and resolving disputes, guaranteeing that all parties involved are aware of their obligations and responsibilities.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can individuals enter into a technology transfer agreement?.

Yes, individuals, including solo entrepreneurs, can enter into a technology transfer agreement, leveraging personal investments to facilitate the transfer of intellectual property, know-how, or technical proficiency, often for collaborative research or innovation initiatives.

How Long Does a Technology Transfer Agreement Typically Last?

The contract duration of a technology transfer agreement varies, but industry standards typically range from 5 to 15 years, depending on the complexity of the technology, market conditions, and mutual agreement between parties.

Can Technology Transfer Agreements Be Terminated Early?

Yes, technology transfer agreements can be terminated early, often due to contract disputes, allowing parties to exit the agreement prematurely through negotiated early termination clauses or judicial intervention resolving disputes.

Are Technology Transfer Agreements Only for Patented Technology?

Technology transfer agreements are not limited to patented technology, as they can also involve the transfer of trade secrets, know-how, and other intellectual property, with patent exceptions allowing for flexibility in agreement structuring.

Do Technology Transfer Agreements Require Regulatory Approval?

Technology transfer agreements may require regulatory approval, depending on the industry and jurisdiction, as they often involve government oversight and adherence to industry standards, guaranteeing compliance with laws and regulations governing intellectual property transfer.

UNLOCK YOUR COPY

Advertisement

Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts

• Published: 24 June 2016
• Volume 41 , pages 1077–1112, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

• Markus A. Kirchberger 1 &
• Larissa Pohl 1  

8199 Accesses

94 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper provides a systematic review of the current literature on technology commercialization. It serves to establish a foundation for the following empirical and theoretical contributions. Technological inventions are fundamental for a country’s economic growth. However, in order to actually generate value for society and profits for the involved companies, these inventions need to be successfully transferred to the market. Therefore, newly developed technologies need to be integrated into products which sell. In particular, our study focuses on the different interaction channels through which technology commercialization occurs. We analyze main groups of institutions, which can either act as developers of technologies and/or organizations bringing these technologies to the market: Universities and research institutes, technology startups, and established companies. We propose a theoretical framework of possible interactions between these organizations and analyze the success factors within the respective channels. Based on the systematic review of 140 articles, key characteristics of the technology development organizations are analyzed with regard to the different possible channels available to commercialize their technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

“Valleys of Death” in Creating, Commercializing, and Diffusion of Key Enabling Technologies

A Guideline for Technology Commercialisation in the 4IR Era

Emerging Issues in Technology Management: Global Perspectives: The Need for and Understanding of a Technology Commercialization Framework

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

At http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/mp3history.html , website is in German, accessed on 19 April 2015.

The authors are most familiar with this rating, however, we checked it for consistency with other ratings through the Harzing overview list.

Adams, J. D. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98 (4), 673–702.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aggarwal, V. A., & Hsu, D. H. (2009). Modes of cooperative R&D commercialization by start-ups. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (8), 835–864.

Ambos, T. T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 48 (8), 1424–1447.

Ankrah, S., Burgess, T., Grimshaw, P., & Shaw, N. (2013). Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33 (2–3), 50–65.

Anokhin, S., Wincent, J., & Frishammar, J. (2011). A conceptual framework for misfit technology commercialization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78 (6), 1060–1071.

Argyres, N. S., & Liebeskind, J. P. (1998). Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35 (4), 427–454.

Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37 (10), 1865–1883.

Astebro, T. (2004). Key success factors for technological entrepreneurs’ R&D projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51 (3), 314–321.

Åstebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41 (4), 663–677.

Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Do university policies make a difference? Research Policy, 34 (3), 343–347.

Autio, E. (1994). New, technology-based firms as agents of R&D and innovation: an empirical study. Technovation, 14 (4), 259–273.

Autio, E., & Klofsten, M. (1998). A comparative study of two European business incubators. Journal of small business management (Print), 36 (1), 30–44.

Google Scholar  

Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2007). What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for the delocalisation of university–industry interaction. Technovation, 27 (11), 704–715.

Balachandra, R., & Friar, J. H. (1997). Factors for success in R&D projects and new product innovation: A contextual framework. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44 (3), 276–287.

Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37 (10), 1837–1853.

Bekkers, R., Gilsing, V., & Steen, M. (2006). Determining factors of the effectiveness of IP-based spin-offs: Comparing the Netherlands and the US. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31 (5), 545–546.

Bell, E. R. J. (1993). Some current issues in technology transfer and academic-industrial relations: A review. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 5 (3), 307–322.

Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29 (2), 142–153.

Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36 (5), 694–707.

Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Proof of concept centers in the United States: An exploratory look. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38 (4), 349–381.

Breznitz, S. M., O’Shea, R. P., & Allen, T. J. (2008). University commercialization strategies in the development of regional bioclusters. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25 (2), 129–142.

Brown, M. A., Berry, L. G., & Goel, R. K. (1991). Guidelines for successfully transferring government-sponsored innovations. Research Policy, 20 (2), 121–143.

Burrington, J. (1993). University-industry cooperation: A framework for dialogue. International Journal of Technology Management, 8 (6/7/8):440–446.

Caerteling, J., Halman, J. I. M., & Dorée, A. G. (2008). Technology commercialization in road infrastructure: How government affects the variation and appropriability of technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25 , 143–161.

Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A., & Vonortas, N. (2001). University-industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26 , 153–161.

Carayannis, E. G., Rogers, E. M., Kurihara, K., & Allbritton, M. M. (1998). High-technology spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities. Technovation, 18 (1), 1–11.

Carayannis, E. G., & Roy, R. S. (2000). Davids vs goliaths in the small satellite industry: The role of technological innovation dynamics in firm competitiveness. Technovation, 20 , 287–297.

Casper, S. (2013). The spill-over theory reversed: The impact of regional economies on the commercialization of university science. Research Policy, 42 (8), 1313–1324.

Ceccagnoli, M., & Hicks, D. (2013). Complementary assets and the choice of organizational governance: Empirical evidence from a large sample of U.S. Technology-based firms. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60 (1), 99–112.

Chang, P.-L., Hsu, C.-W., & Tsai, C.-T. (1999). A stage approach for industrial technology development and implementation—the case of Taiwan’s computer industry. Technovation, 19 (4), 233–241.

Chang, Y.-C., Yang, P. Y., & Chen, M.-H. (2009). The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38 (6), 936–946.

Chen, C.-J. (2009). Technology commercialization, incubator and venture capital, and new venture performance. Journal of Business Research, 62 (1), 93–103.

Chesbrough, H. W., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R and D Management, 36 (3), 229–236.

Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van de Velde, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin-off companies. Journal of Management Studies, 48 (6), 1420–1442.

Clausen, T., & Korneliussen, T. (2012). The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and speed to the market: The case of incubator firms in Norway. Technovation, 32 (9–10), 560–567.

Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., & Sampat, B. N. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48 (1), 61–72.

Conceição, O., Fontes, M., & Calapez, T. (2012). The commercialisation decisions of research-based spin-off: Targeting the market for technologies. Technovation, 32 (1), 43–56.

Conceição, P., Hamill, D., & Pinheiro, P. (2002). Innovative science and technology commercialization strategies at 3M: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19 (1), 25–38.

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.

D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36 (3), 316–339.

Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39 (6), 699–709.

De Luca, L. M., Verona, G., & Vicari, S. (2010). Market orientation and R&D effectiveness in high-technology firms: An empirical investigation in the biotechnology industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (3), 299–320.

del Campo, A. A., Sparks, A., Hill, R., & Keller, R. (1999). The transfer and commercialization of university-developed medical imaging technology: Opportunities and problems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46 (3), 289–298.

Devine, M., James, T., & Adams, T. (1987). Government supported industry-university research centers: issues for successful technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 12 (1), 27–37.

Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32 (2), 209–227.

Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33 (3), 225–247.

Dorf, R., & Worthington, K. (1987). Models for commercialization of technology from universities and research laboratories. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 12 (1), 1–8.

Duhm, E.-J., & Wielockx, A. (1991). From research to volume production. International Journal of Technology Management, 6 (1/2), 123–130.

Eesley, C. E., Hsu, D. H., & Roberts, E. B. (2013). The contingent effects of top management teams on venture performance: Aligning founding team composition with innovation strategy and commercialization environment. Strategic Management Journal, 35 (12), 1798–1817.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. Semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (3), 504.

Eldred, E., & McGrath, M. (1997a). Commercializing new technology. Research Technology Management, 40 (2), 29–34.

Eldred, E., & McGrath, M. (1997b). Commercializing new technology—II. Research Technology Management, 40 (2), 29.

Ensley, M. D., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Research Policy, 34 (7), 1091–1105.

Eurostat. (2008). Science, technology, and innovation in Europe . European Commission Eurostat.

Fini, R., Lacetera, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Inside or outside the IP system? Business creation in academia. Research Policy, 39 (8), 1060–1069.

Fryda, L. (1989). Illinois plan for technology transferat Illinois State University. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 14 (3–4), 43–45.

Galbraith, C. S. (2012). Predicting the commercialization progress of early-stage technologies: An ex-ante analysis. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59 (2), 213–225.

Galbraith, C. S., DeNoble, A. F., & Ehrlich, S. B. (2004). “Spin-In” technology transfer for small R&D bio-technology firms: The case of bio-defense. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29 (3/4), 377–382.

Galbraith, C. S., Ehrlich, S. B., & DeNoble, A. F. (2006). Predicting technology success: Identifying key predictors and assessing expert evaluation for advanced technologies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31 (6), 673–684.

Galbraith, C. S., Merrill, G., & Campbell, K. (1991). The vertical transfer of technological know-how in the navy research and development community. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 2 (1), 15–33.

Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32 (2), 333–350.

Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. J. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19 (2), 110–132.

George, G., Zahra, S. A., & Wood, D. (2002). The effects of business—university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (6), 577–609.

Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32 (4), 639–658.

Golish, B. L., Besterfield-Sacre, M. E., & Shuman, L. J. (2008). Comparing academic and corporate technology development processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25 (1), 47–62.

Gredel, D., Kramer, M., & Bend, B. (2012). Patent-based investment funds as innovation intermediaries for SMEs: In-depth analysis of reciprocal interactions, motives and fallacies. Technovation, 32 (9–10), 536–549.

Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40 (8), 1045–1057.

Grimpe, C. (2006). Making use of the unused: Shelf warmer technologies in research and development. Technovation, 26 (7), 770–774.

Grimpe, C., & Fier, H. (2009). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35 (6), 637–650.

Haeussler, C. (2008). The determinants of technology commercialization in british and german biotechnology. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings . doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2008.33716542 .

Hall, B., Link, A., & Scott, J. (2001). Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the advanced technology program. The Journal of Technology Transfer , 26 (1–2), 87–98.

Hansen, M. T., Chesbrough, H. W., Nohria, N., & Sull, D. N. (2000). Networked incubators. Hothouses of the new economy. Harvard Business Review, 78 (5):74–84, 199.

Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80 (1), 119–127.

Heslop, L., McGregor, E., & Griffith, M. (2001). Development of a technology readiness assessment measure: The cloverleaf model of technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26 (4), 369–384.

Holden, P. D., & Konishi, F. (1996). Technology transfer practice in Japanese corporations: Meeting new service requirements. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 21 (1–2), 43–53.

Hsu, C.-W. (2005). Formation of industrial innovation mechanisms through the research institute. Technovation, 25 (11), 1317–1329.

Hunter, E. M., Perry, S. J., & Currall, S. C. (2011). Inside multi-disciplinary science and engineering research centers: The impact of organizational climate on invention disclosures and patents. Research Policy, 40 (9), 1226–1239.

Jelinek, M., & Markham, S. K. (2007). Industry-university IP relations: Integrating perspectives and policy solutions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54 (2), 257–267.

Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91 (1), 240–259.

Johnson, W. H. (2008). Roles, resources and benefits of intermediate organizations supporting triple helix collaborative R&D: The case of Precarn. Technovation, 28 (8), 495–505.

Kasch, S., & Dowling, M. (2008). Commercialization strategies of young biotechnology firms: An empirical analysis of the U.S. industry. Research Policy, 37 (10), 1765–1777.

Kassicieh, S. K., Kirchhoff, B. A., Walsh, S. T., & McWhorter, P. J. (2002). The role of small firms in the transfer of disruptive technologies. Technovation, 22 (11), 667–674.

Kollmer, H., & Dowling, M. (2004). Licensing as a commercialisation strategy for new technology-based firms. Research Policy, 33 (8), 1141–1151.

Kroll, H., & Liefner, I. (2008). Spin-off enterprises as a means of technology commercialisation in a transforming economy—Evidence from three universities in China. Technovation, 28 (5), 298–313.

Kumar, V., & Jain, P. K. (2003). Commercialization of new technologies in India: An empirical study of perceptions of technology institutions. Technovation, 23 (2), 113–120.

Landry, R., Amara, N., Cloutier, J.-S., & Halilem, N. (2013). Technology transfer organizations: Services and business models. Technovation, 33 (12), 431–449.

Large, D., Belinko, K., & Kalligatsi, K. (2000). Building successful technology commercialization teams: pilot empirical support for the theory of cascading commitment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25 , 169–180.

Lee, J., & Win, H. (2004). Technology transfer between university research centers and industry in Singapore. Technovation, 24 (5), 433–442.

Leitch, C. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2005). Maximising the potential of university spin-outs: The development of second-order commercialisation activities. R and D Management, 35 (3), 257–272.

Li, Y., Guo, H., Liu, Y., & Li, M. (2008). Incentive mechanisms, entrepreneurial orientation, and technology commercialization: Evidence from China’s transitional economy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25 (1), 63–78.

Libaers, D. P. (2012). Time allocation decisions of academic scientists and their impact on technology commercialization. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59 (4), 705–716.

Libaers, D. P., Meyer, M., & Geuna, A. (2006). The role of university spinout companies in an emerging technology: The case of nanotechnology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31 (4), 443–450.

Link, A. N., & Ruhm, C. J. (2009). Bringing science to market: Commercializing from NIH SBIR Awards. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 18 (3–4), 381–402.

Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2010). Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research Policy, 39 (5), 589–601.

Lo, C.-C., Wang, C.-H., Chien, P.-Y., & Hung, C.-W. (2012). An empirical study of commercialization performance on nanoproducts. Technovation, 32 (3–4), 168–178.

Maia, C., & Claro, J. A. (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.

Maine, E., & Garnsey, E. (2006). Commercializing generic technology: The case of advanced materials ventures. Research Policy, 35 (3), 375–393.

Maine, E., Lubik, S., & Garnsey, E. (2012). Process-based vs. product-based innovation: Value creation by nanotech ventures. Technovation, 32 (3–4):179–192.

Markham, S. K., Kingon, A., Lewis, R., & Zapata, M. (2002). The university’s role in creating radically new products. International Journal of Transfer and Commercialisation, I (1/2), 163–173.

Markham, S. K., & Lee, H. (2013). Product development and management association’s 2012 comparative performance assessment study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30 (3), 408–429.

Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2009). Supply-side innovation and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 46 (4), 625–649.

Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34 (7), 1058–1075.

Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (8), 1401–1423.

Mian, S. (1996). Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms. Research Policy, 25 , 325–335.

Mian, S. (1997). Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 6568 (96), 251–285.

Mitchell, W., & Singh, K. (1996). Survival of businesses using collaborative relationships to commercialize complex goods. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (3), 169–195.

Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P., Rojo, J., Bellido, F., Fiore, F., & Tübke, A. (2003). Early identification and marketing of innovative technologies: A case study of RTD result valorisation at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Technovation, 23 (8), 655–667.

Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35 (2), 289–308.

Narayanan, V., Yang, Y., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Corporate venturing and value creation: A review and proposed framework. Research Policy, 38 (1), 58–76.

Nerkar, A., & Shane, S. (2003). When do start-ups that exploit patented academic knowledge survive? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21 (9), 1391–1410.

Nerkar, A., & Shane, S. (2007). Determinants of invention commercialization: An empirical examination of academically sourced inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 1166 (April 2002):1155–1166.

Nevens, T. M. (1990). Commercializing technology: What the best companies do. Strategy & Leadership, 18 (6), 20–24.

Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003). Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (3), 333–359.

O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34 (7), 994–1009.

Patton, D., Warren, L., & Bream, D. (2009). Elements that underpin high-tech business incubation processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34 (6), 621–636.

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42 (2), 423–442.

Powell, B. C. (2010). Equity carve-outs as a technology commercialization strategy: An exploratory case study of Thermo Electron’s strategy. Technovation, 30 (1), 37–47.

Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. (2005a). Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies. Research Policy, 34 (7), 1028–1042.

Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005b). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (3), 291–311.

Radosevich, R. (1995). A model for entrepreneurial spin-offs from public technology sources. International Journal of Technology Management, 10 (7–8), 879–893.

Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy, 39 (5), 602–612.

Ray, P. K., & Ray, S. (2010). Resource-constrained innovation for emerging economies: The case of the Indian telecommunications industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57 (1), 144–156.

Rice, M. P. (2002). Co-production of business assistance in business incubators: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (2), 163–187.

Roberson, B., & Weijo, R. (1988). Using market research to convert federal technology into marketable products. Technology Transfer , 13 , 27–33.

Rogers, E. M., Takegami, S., & Yin, J. (2001). Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21 (4), 253–261.

Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research Policy, 19 (2), 165–174.

Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16 (4), 691–791.

Rothwell, R. (1989). Smfs inter firm relationships and technological change. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1 (3), 275–291.

Roure, J. B., & Keeley, R. H. (1990). Predictors of success in new technology based ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 5 (4), 201–220.

Shane, S. (2001). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47 (2), 205–220.

Shane, S., & Stuart, T. E. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48 (1), 154–170.

Siegel, R. A., Hansén, S.-O., & Pellas, L. H. (1995). Accelerating the commercialization of technology: Commercialization through co-operation. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 95 (1), 18–26.

Siegel, D. S., & Phan, P. (2004). Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education . New York: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1016/S1048-4736(05)16001-9 .

Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23 (4), 640–660.

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14 (1), 111–133.

Slater, S. F., & Mohr, J. J. (2006). Successful development and commercialization of technological innovation: Insights based on strategy type. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23 (1), 26–33.

Smilor, R., & Gibson, D. (1991). Technology transfer in multi-organizational environments: The case of R&D consortia. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38 (1), 3–13.

Smilor, R. W., Gibson, D. V., & Dietrich, G. B. (1990). University spin-out companies: Technology start-ups from UT-Austin. Journal of Business Venturing, 5 (1), 63–76.

Snow, C. C., Fjeldstad, O. Y. D., Lettl, C., & Miles, R. E. (2011). Organizing continuous product development and commercialization: The collaborative community of firms model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (1), 3–16.

Song, M., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2008). Supplier’s involvement and success of radical new product development in new ventures. Journal of Operations Management, 26 (1), 1–22.

Spann, M. S., Adams, M., & Souder, W. E. (1993). Improving federal technology commercialization: Some recommendations from a field study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 6 , 63–74.

Spann, M. S., Adams, M., & Souder, W. E. (1995). Measures of technology transfer effectiveness: Key dimensions and differences in their use by sponsors, developers and adopters. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42 (1), 19–29.

Steffensen, M., Rogers, E., & Speakman, K. (1999). Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. Journal of Business Venturing, 9026 (98), 93–111.

Stevens, G., & Burley, J. (2003). Piloting the rocket of radical innovation. Research - Technology Management , 32 , 16–25.

Stuart, T. E., Ozdemir, S. Z., & Ding, W. W. (2007). Vertical alliance networks: The case of university–biotechnology–pharmaceutical alliance chains. Research Policy, 36 (4), 477–498.

Swamidass, P. M. (2012). University startups as a commercialization alternative: Lessons from three contrasting case studies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38 (6), 788–808.

Swamidass, P. M., & Vulasa, V. (2009). Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34 (4), 343–363.

Tegarden, L. F., Lamb, W. B., Hatfield, D. E., & Ji, F. X. (2012). Bringing emerging technologies to market: Does academic research promote commercial exploration and exploitation? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59 (4), 598–608.

Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Industry perspectives on licensing university technologies: Sources and problems. Industry and Higher Education, 15 (4), 289–294.

Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48 (1), 90–104.

Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Industry/university licensing: Characteristics, concerns and issues from the perspective of the buyer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28 (3–4), 207–213.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 , 207–222.

van Burg, E., Gilsing, V. A., Reymen, I. M., & Romme, A. G. L. (2013). The formation of fairness perceptions in the cooperation between entrepreneurs and universities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30 (4), 677–694.

van Burg, E., Romme, A. G. L., Gilsing, V. A., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2008). Creating university spin offs: A science based design perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25 (2), 114–128.

van Geenhuizen, M., & Soetanto, D. P. (2009). Academic spin-offs at different ages: A case study in search of key obstacles to growth. Technovation, 29 (10), 671–681.

Wallin, M. W., & Lindholm Dahlstrand, A. S. (2006). Sponsored spin-offs, industrial growth and change. Technovation, 26 (5–6), 611–620.

Walsh, P. R. (2012). Innovation nirvana or innovation wasteland? Identifying commercialization strategies for small and medium renewable energy enterprises. Technovation, 32 (1), 32–42.

Walsh, S. T., Kirchhoff, B. A., & Newbert, S. (2002). Differentiating market strategies for disruptive technologies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49 (4), 341–351.

White, A., & Schmidt, K. (2005). Systematic literature reviews. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 13 (1), 54–60.

Wong, P.-K. (2007). Commercializing biomedical science in a rapidly changing “triple-helix” nexus: The experience of the National University of Singapore. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32 (4), 367–395.

Wood, S., & Brown, G. (1998). Commercializing nascent technology: The case of laser diodes at Sony. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15 (2), 167–183.

Xu, Z., Parry, M. E., & Song, M. (2011). The impact of technology transfer office characteristics on university invention disclosure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58 (2), 212–227.

Zahra, S. A., & Nielsen, A. P. (2002). Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (5), 377–398.

Zhang, C., Henke, J. W., & Griffith, D. A. (2009). Do buyer cooperative actions matter under relational stress? Evidence from Japanese and U.S. assemblers in the U.S. automotive industry. Journal of Operations Management, 27 , 479–494.

Zhao, L., & Reisman, A. (1992). Toward meta research on technology transfer. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 39 (1), 13–21.

Zucker, L., Darby, M. R. M., & Armstrong, J. J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48 (1), 138–153.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chair for Management Accounting, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Kaiserstraße 89, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany

Markus A. Kirchberger & Larissa Pohl

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus A. Kirchberger .

Appendix: A Literature review table of papers

In this table we list all the papers which we reviewed. We report the author and date for the identification of studies, the journal, research questions, research type, samples characteristics, key findings, success factors, and entry in our matrix.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kirchberger, M.A., Pohl, L. Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts. J Technol Transf 41 , 1077–1112 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9486-3

Download citation

Published : 24 June 2016

Issue Date : October 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9486-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Technology commercialization
• Transfer channels
• Success factors
• Technology innovation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research