01814nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245008900055210006900144260004200213300001000255490000600265520111900271653002001390653002801410653001501438653003201453653002401485100003101509700001801540856003801558       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aUsing Action Research to Organize Technology Transfer in Complex Innovation Contexts0 aUsing Action Research to Organize Technology Transfer in Complex  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2019  a17-260 v93 aTechnology transfer projects increasingly consist of multiple, diverse organizations, with each pursuing their own agenda as well as that of the overarching programme. In this article, we adopt a participatory action research methodology in order to explain and improve the coordination of the autonomous innovation activities within an organizationally complex project. The context of the research involved the transfer of rice production technology from China to Mozambique. The action research identified four categories of boundary within the project that were hindering performance: Intellectual/Land property rights; Public/Private sector logics; Inside/Outside programme; and Collaboration/Competition between programme actors. The process of co-inquiry with stakeholders enabled by the action research allowed programme actors to reach an understanding of others, and it created a new thinking space for mutual problem solving. By these means, the action research process makes a resource of the differences between stakeholders rather than it being seen as a barrier to be compromised through negotiation.10aaction research10aagricultural innovation10aboundaries10ainternational collaboration10atechnology transfer1 aUssivane, Armando, Machevo1 aEllwood, Paul  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123000788nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245003800055210003500093260004200128300000800170490000600178653002300184653003100207653001600238653001500254653001500269653001600284653001500300653002700315653002400342653001600366653002000382653001700402653002400419100001800443856003700461       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (August 2017)0 aEditorial Insights August 2017  aOttawabTalent First Networkc08/2017  a3-40 v710aacademic spin-offs10abusiness model development10acar sharing10aincubation10aleadership10aMachiavelli10amanagement10aorganizational culture10aresearch institutes10aresearchers10asharing economy10asocial media10atechnology transfer1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/109401892nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245007800055210006900133260004200202300000900244490000600253520119000259653002301449653003101472653002401503653002101527653001301548653002401561100002301585700001701608856003701625       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aPromoting Entrepreneurial Commitment: The Benefits of Interdisciplinarity0 aPromoting Entrepreneurial Commitment The Benefits of Interdiscip  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2017  a6-130 v73 aThis article is the first to examine the relationship between interdisciplinarity and entrepreneurial commitment in academic spin-offs. Building on literature on interdisciplinarity, academic entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial intention, we analyzed the development of nine interdisciplinary spin-off teams comprising expertise from science, industry, and design. Our findings suggest that interdisciplinary teams engage with their ideas, maintain productive interaction, and successfully implement these ideas. Subjects in this study thoroughly developed their project proposals and implementation strategies by examining them from multiple angles. They believed not only in the value of these projects, but in their own ability to see them through. They found one another’s contributions highly inspirational and experienced a strong sense of responsibility and motivation. Communication within the teams was well managed, and tasks were clearly defined and distributed. Based on our findings, we put forward a number of propositions about the positive effects of interdisciplinarity on entrepreneurial commitment and conclude with implications for future research and practice.10aacademic spin-offs10aentrepreneurial commitment10ainterdisciplinarity10ateam composition10ateamwork10atechnology transfer1 aBrodack, Franziska1 aSinell, Anna  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/112300618nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245006500055210006200120260004200182300001000224490000600234653002200240653002100262653001400283653001300297653002400310653001700334100002400351856003700375       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aQ&A. Are Universities Ready for Knowledge Commercialization?0 aQA Are Universities Ready for Knowledge Commercialization  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2017  a63-680 v710acommercialization10aentrepreneurship10aknowledge10aresearch10atechnology transfer10auniversities1 aKhan, Mohammad Saud  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/109101660nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245010300055210006900158260004200227300000900269490000600278520086300284653002201147653002701169653002101196653001501217653002601232653002401258100002301282700001901305700001901324700002601343856003701369       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aA Structured Approach to Academic Technology Transfer: Lessons Learned from imec’s 101 Programme0 aStructured Approach to Academic Technology Transfer Lessons Lear  aOttawabTalent First Networkc08/2017  a5-140 v73 aIn this article, we describe imec’s 101 Programme for academic technology transfer and explain how it supports researchers by following a structured process in a limited amount of time and by carefully involving different stakeholders and people with relevant skills and expertise. The programme combines insights in terms of processes and of team composition from the entrepreneurship literature and puts them into practice in an internal incubation programme that is generated from the bottom-up. Based on hands-on experiences and interviews with key stakeholders in the process, we evaluate the programme and distill lessons learned. The article highlights the importance of a structured technology transfer process in the early stages of opportunity discovery and entrepreneurial action, and it offers insights on team formation for academic spin-offs.10aacademic spin-off10aentrepreneurial action10aentrepreneurship10aincubation10aresearch valorization10atechnology transfer1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aDe Vocht, Stan1 aDe Cleyn, Sven1 aHerregodts, Aron-Levi  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/109500658nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245006600055210006300121260004200184300001000226490000600236653001500242653002000257653003400277653002400311653003800335100001900373700002300392856003700415       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aQ&A. How Can a University Drive an Open Innovation Ecosystem?0 aQA How Can a University Drive an Open Innovation Ecosystem  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2016  a48-510 v610aecosystems10aOpen innovation10apublic–private partnerships10atechnology transfer10auniversity–industry cooperation1 aLeón, Gonzalo1 aMartínez, Roberto  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/100402393nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245008400055210006900139260004200208300001000250490000600260520164100266653002201907653002601929653001601955653002801971653002301999653002202022653002402044653002402068100002302092856003602115       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aCommercialization and Public Good: Conflict, Complement, or Critical Component?0 aCommercialization and Public Good Conflict Complement or Critica  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2014  a27-350 v43 aThe controversy regarding the role of science in society – and how science can best achieve its role – may well date as far back as the beginnings of science itself. The specific arguments and the possible mechanisms for science to impact society, however, have changed over time. This article picks up the conversation with regards to the specific role of publicly funded science, presuming, similar to Brecht in this article's opening quotation, that publicly funded science has the goal of making positive contributions to society. 

To achieve this goal, today’s scientists and research managers face a myriad options of publication venues, protection mechanism, and collaborations with external partners including licensing and other options for commercialization. Oftentimes, the goal of achieving positive contributions to society is perceived as being in fundamental conflict with the restrictions many commercialization arrangements place on the use of knowledge. This article argues that, although commercialization may at times conflict with the goal of achieving positive contributions to society, it can also be complementary to pursuits towards societal contributions, or even a critical component in achieving the desired positive contributions to society. More specifically, it suggests that the use of the term “science for the public good” as description of the goal to achieve positive societal contributions might create confusion with the economic term “public good”. Thus, it seeks to reframe the discussion of how science can contribute to society in an era of increased openness and interaction. 10acommercialization10aintellectual property10apublic good10apublicly funded science10ascience in society10asocietal benefits10atechnology transfer10auniversity research1 aSchillo, R. Sandra  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/81003136nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245012500055210006900180260004200249300001000291490000600301520228500307653002602592653001902618653001802637653002002655653002402675653004002699653003302739100002402772700002202796700002802818856003602846       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aUniversity-SME Collaboration and Open Innovation: Intellectual-Property Management Tools and the Roles of Intermediaries0 aUniversitySME Collaboration and Open Innovation IntellectualProp  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2013  a33-410 v33 aIn 2009, the Conseil de la science et de la technologie du Québec (CST) made 13 recommendations to the Government of Quebec in order to shift innovative actors towards open-innovation practices adapted to the province's context: diversified economic sectors, a majority of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), public universities, etc. Among these recommendations are: i) to set up flexible mechanisms to promote research collaboration between public-private sectors such as universities and SMEs, and ii) to optimize intermediation bodies’ contribution to establish open-innovation practices. Furthermore, the lack of adequate understanding and tools for the management of intellectual property (IP) was identified as a major inhibitor of open-innovation practices, to which actors should pay specific attention. In this article, we present results and recommendations from a field study focused on two groups of actors: i) companies involved in collaborative innovation and ii) intermediary agents enabling innovation and technology transfer. Our first goal was to shed some light on factors that facilitate open innovation through improved university-enterprise collaborations and, more importantly, that attempt to overcome the irritants related to IP management. Our second goal was to analyze the roles of diverse intermediaries in the fostering of successful collaborations between universities and SMEs. 

Our study yielded three findings: i) SMEs do not care about understanding and improving their capabilities about IP and are not equipped with adequate tools and best practices for managing IP and for managing the overall collaborative mechanisms in general; ii) this gap in preparation for open innovation is persistent, since even the intermediaries, whose role is to guide SMEs in university-enterprise collaborations, suffer themselves from the lack of appropriate IP transfer and sharing tools, and do not perceive the need to offer better support in this regard; and iii) overall, current IP-transfer and collaboration-management tools are not sophisticated enough to provide appropriate support for the implementation of open innovation, by which we mean more open and collaborative innovation in the context of university-enterprise collaborations.10aintellectual property10aintermediaries10aIP management10aOpen innovation10atechnology transfer10auniversity-enterprise collaboration10auniversity-SME collaboration1 aDeschamps, Isabelle1 aMacedo, Maria, G.1 aEve-Levesque, Christian  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/668