Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 285–301 | Cite as

Challenges in technology transfer: an actor perspective in a quadruple helix environment

  • Constance Van Horne
  • Vincent Dutot
Article

Abstract

This article presents and tests a knowledge and technology transfer framework in a quadruple helix environment, from an actor perspective. The Canadian forest products industry provides a unique opportunity for data collection through case studies as it is an industry built on a triple bottom line, which is managed for sustainable progress. By confronting the new framework to 31 professionals, we highlight the role and challenges faced by each helix. Several factors such as culture, time horizon management and the adaption of theory to practice appear to be determinant to improve technology transfer. We see in our work an important contribution to the generalization of knowledge and technology transfer processes in a quadruple helix environment.

Keywords

Knowledge and technology transfer Challenges Forest products industry Triple helix Quadruple helix 

JEL Classification

O3 

References

  1. Acworth, E. (2008). University–industry engagement: The formation of the Knowledge Integration Community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Research Policy, 37, 1241–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afonso, O., Monteiro, S., & Thompson, M. (2012). A growth model for the quadruple helix. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 13(5), 849–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buber, R., Gadner, J., & Richards, L. (2004). Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Burnett, S., & Williams, D. (2014). The role of knowledge transfer in technological innovation: An oil and gas industry perspective. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(2), 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calcagnini, G., & Favaretto, I. (2016). Models of university technology transfer: Analyses and policies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 655–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The quadruple/quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 212–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43(7), 1164–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Del Giudice, M., & Maggioni, V. (2014). Managerial practices and operative directions of knowledge management within inter-firm networks: A global view. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(5), 841–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  11. Eisenhardt, K., & Graebner, M. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Studies of Science, 42(3), 293–337.Google Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix–university–industry–government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review, 14(1), 11–19.Google Scholar
  14. Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geoghegan, W., O’Kane, C., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). Technology transfer offices as a nexus within the triple helix: The progression of the university’s role. International Journal of Technology Management, 68(3–4), 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. (2005). Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30, 146–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jonsson, L., Baraldi, E., Larsson, L. E., Forsberg, P., & Severinsson, K. (2015). Targeting academic engagement in open innovation: Tools, effects and challenges for university management. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6(3), 522–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khan, M. R., & Al-Ansari, M. (2005). Sustainable Innovation as a Corporate Strategy. Available at: http://www.triz-journal.com/archives/2005/01/02.pdf.
  20. Landry, R. (2008). Knowledge transfer as a value creation process. Working paper, Chair on Knowledge Transfer and Innovation, Université Laval, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Landry, R., Amara, N., Pablos-Mendez, A., Shademani, R., & Gold, I. (2006). The knowledge-value chain: A conceptual framework for knowledge translation in health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(8), 597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B., & Abelson, J. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Quarterly, 8(2), 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liljemark, T. (2004). Innovation policy in Canada. Strategy and realities. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  24. Liyanage, C., Elhag, T., Ballal, T., & Li, Q. (2009). Knowledge communication and translation-a knowledge transfer model. Journal of Knowledge management, 13(3), 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Macdonald, S., Assimakopoulos, D., & Anderson, P. (2007). Education and training for innovation in SMEs: A tale of exploitation. International Small Business Journal, 25, 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Majchrzak, A., Cooper, L., & Neece, O. (2004). Knowledge reuse for innovation. Management Science, 50(2), 174–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Palacios-Marqués, D., Merigó, J. M., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2015). Online social networks as an enabler of innovation in organizations. Management Decision, 53(9), 1906–1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Park, H. W. (2014). Transition from the Triple Helix to N-Tuple Helices? An interview with Elias G. Carayannis and David FJ Campbell. Scientometrics, 99(1), 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roessner, J. D. (2000). Technology transfer. Science and technology policy in the US. A time of change. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  30. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sandberg, J., Holmström, J., Napier, N., & Levén, P. (2015). Balancing diversity in innovation networks: Trading zones in university–industry R&D collaboration. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(1), 44–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Swar, B., & Khan, G. F. (2014). Mapping ICT knowledge infrastructure in South Asia. Scientometrics, 99(1), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(27), 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Horne, C. (2009). Innovation and Value: Knowledge and Technology Transfer from University-industry Research Centres to the Forest Products Industry (Doctoral dissertation, Université Laval).Google Scholar
  36. Van Horne, C., Poulin, D., & Frayret, J. M. (2012). Innovation and value creation in university–industry research centres in the Canadian forest products industry. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 42(11), 1884–1895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Veniegas, R. C., Kao, U. H., Rosales, R., & Arellanes, M. (2009). HIV prevention technology transfer: Challenges and strategies in the real world. American Journal of Public Health, 99(Suppl 1), S124–S130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the roles of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37, 1205–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Stage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Yusuf, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and business. Research Policy, 37, 1167–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of BusinessZayed UniversityAbu DhabiUAE
  2. 2.Chair D-CubeParis School of BusinessParisFrance

Personalised recommendations