Search

A large number of modern consumer focussed industries are characterised by fast paced technology driven innovations - smart phones and other computing devices, software, home audio and video technologies, automobiles, pharmaceuticals etc. being a few notable examples. Such industries are research driven and are characterised by their unique technological ecosystems. Competition within such industries is not limited to pricing and marketing strategies alone, but is driven by R&D as well, whereby new features, new variants and upgraded technology is c onstantly being introduced to attract customers (Frambach, 1993). Consequently, firms often tend to use the existing intellectual property (IP) framework within their industries as a standard tool against rivals - both for defensive and offensive purposes (Litchenber, 2002).

Resumen del trabajo presentado en la XVI Triple Helix Conference, celebrada en Manchester (Inglaterra) del 05 al 08 de septiembre de 2018., Universities interactions with industry and the broader society have gained prominence in the academic and policy discourse, and knowledge exchange (KE) activities of universities are increasingly supported via dedicated government funding, investment in infrastructure and incentives for academics and HEIs.This expanding KE agenda in policy and academia and recent announcements such as the introduction of the Knowledge Exchange Framework in the UK calls for a renewed discussion about what constitutes KE, what are adequate metrics to capture its performance, how are these translated into incentives (financial or otherwise), and how measurement and performance frameworks may support or hinder these activities. Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts, and therefore a narrow focus on output indicators related to commercialisation should be avoided. This panel aims to assess the relevance of existing practices in the collection of data and in the measurement of KE, and contribute to the development of approaches to measure, assess and promote KE that more accurately reflect the broad nature of the knowledge produced, nurtured and absorbed by HEIs. The panelwill address three broad areas related to KE practices and the associated questions and reflections arising from past experiences and challenges for future metric design and implementation.

This paper addresses the gap in the knowledge transfer literature around how universities choose specific organizational models for their knowledge transfer offices (KTOs). Organization theory points towards strong interlinkages between strategy, structure and processes in organizations. This motivates an exploration of similar links within the organizational setup of KTOs. In doing so, the paper provides a unified theoretical framework around a university's choice of structure, business model and strategic preferences for their KTOs linked to university‐specific contextual factors. A qualitative approach is used wherein four very distinct British universities are examined as individual case studies. The authors find that strategic aims of the university around practitioner engagement, the quantity of applied research and research specialization are key factors in determining the organizational characteristics of the KTO. The theoretical framework derived from the cases makes two key contributions to the university knowledge transfer literature. First, it links the university‐level contextual factors to the local model of knowledge transfer. Second, it allows us to develop a set of generic models of knowledge transfer, which can potentially guide universities to develop their own specific models.