Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bridging Academic Inventors—TTO Managers Schism: The Lean Canvas for Invention

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the II International Triple Helix Summit (THS 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 43))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to bridge knowledge asymmetries between academic inventors and professionals of the technology transfer offices (TTO) by developing a tool—Lean Canvas for Invention (LCI). This tool is to educate academic inventors for incorporating the integral pre-commercialization components such as involvement of stakeholders, patent literature and market review in research proposals. This information has the potential to improve quality of invention disclosures to TTO and to increase chances of commercialization. This paper through interviews explores challenges (Cn) of TTO professionals and proposes solutions (Sn). As inventions disclosed, TTO managers initiate a technology transfer process and explore for patentability and market. If such aspects are considered by academic inventors, at the earlier stage of research process, chances of commercialization strengthen. The Cn and Sn are then adopted to develop an educational tool—LCI, to bridge the knowledge schism and improve the quality of invention disclosures. Cn and Sn are clustered with respect to five components and six sub-components, each with respective checklist required for writing a research proposal for invention. Evaluation of LCI by TTO at the University of Utah for “Acceptability”, “Usability” and “Guidance” is given. Feedback from TTO directors, TTO managers and academic inventors helped in development of a pre-commercialization research development tool—LCI. Based on findings and analyses, this paper validates the utility of the LCI as guidance for academic inventors to improve alignment of inventions with the technology transfer process.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Agarwal A, Henderson R (2002) Putting patents in contexts. Manag Sci 48(1):44–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmad AJ, Ingle S (2011) Relationships matter: case study of a university campus incubator. Int J Entrepreneurial Behav Res 17(6):626–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aki A, Harri H, Pia S (2013) Early stakeholder involvement in the project definition phase: case renovation. ISRN Ind Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/953915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Auerswald PE, Branscomb LM (2003) Valley of death and darwinian seas: financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States. J Technol Transf 28:227–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Becker MC (2001) Managing dispersed knowledge: organizational problems, managerial strategies, and their effectiveness. J Manage Stud 38(7):1037–1051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhutto A, Qazi MA (2009) Does regulation always contribute positively towards technology evolution in the European mobile industry? Int J Innov Technol Manag 6(4):341–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chesbrough H (2006) Open business models: how to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen WM, Levinthat DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective of learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Creswell JW (2014) Research design: a qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches, 4th edn. Sage, Los Angeles, CA

    Google Scholar 

  10. Debackere K, Veugelers R (2005) The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Res Policy 34(3):321–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Egidi M (1996) Routines, hierarchies of problem, procedural behavior: some evidence from experiments. In: Arrow K, Colombatto E, Perlman M, Schmidt C (eds) The rational foundations of economic behaviour. Macmillan, London, pp 303–333

    Google Scholar 

  12. Etzkowitz H (2003) Research groups as ‘quasi firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Res Policy 32:109–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fernandez JA (2010) Contextual role of TRLs and MRLs in technology management. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550. http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2010/107595.pdf

  14. Fogelberg H, Sanden BA (2008) Understanding reflexive systems of innovation: an analysis of Swedish nanotechnology disclosure and organization. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 20(1):65–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fontes M (2005) The process of transformation of scientific and technological knowledge into economic value conducted by biotechnology spin-offs. Technovation 25:339–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Grandi A, Grimaldi R (2005) Academic organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. J Bus Ventur 20(6):821–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Heath C, Heath D (2008) Made to stick: why some ideas survive and others die. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Howells J, Ramlogan R, Cheng SL (2012) Innovation and University collaboration: paradox and complexity within the knowledge economy. Camb J Econ 36(3):703–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jo HG (2012) A harmony between point of parity and point of difference for the improvement of positioning. In: Kim T, Ramos C, Kim H, Kiumi A, Mohammed S, Slezak D (eds) Computer application for software engineering, disaster recovery and business continuity. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Springer, Berlin, p 340

    Google Scholar 

  20. Johnson SD, Gatz EF, Hicks D (1997) Expanding the content base of technology education: technology transfer as topic of study. J Technol Educ 8(2):35–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kampourakis K (2016) Publish or perish? Sci Educ 25(3–4):249–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J (2003) Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care 15(3):261–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Konecki KT (2008) Triangulation and dealing with the realness of qualitative research. Qual Sociol Rev 4(3):7–28

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kumar V, Jain PK (2003) Commercialization of new technologies in India: an empirical study of perceptions of technology institutions. Technovation 23:113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Liargovas P (2013) Do business incubators and Technoparks affect regional innovation? A comparative study in the EU27 and the NC16 countries. Working paper. Available online: http://www.ub.edu/searchproject/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/WP-4.5.pdf

  26. Link AN, Siegel DS, Bozeman B (2007) An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Ind Corp Change 16(4):641–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Magretta J (2010) Why business models matter. Harvard business review on business model innovation. HBR Publishing Corporation, USA

    Google Scholar 

  28. Maia C, Claro J (2013) The role of a proof of concept center in a university ecosystem: an exploratory study. J Technol Transfer 38(5):641–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mankins JC (1995) Technology Readiness levels. White paper, 6 Apr 1995

    Google Scholar 

  30. Markham SK (2016) Moving technologies from lab to market. Res Technol Manag 45(6):31–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Maurya A (2012) Running lean: iterate from plan A to plan that works. O’Reilly, Sebatopol, CA

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mian S (2011) Science and technology based regional entrepreneurship: global experience in policy and program development. Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Sage publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nagle T, Sammon D (2016) The development of a design research canvas for data practitioners. J Decis Syst 25(1):369–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. NCAI-CC (2018) NSF I-Corps curriculum and business model canvas. Retrieved from http://www.ncai-cc.ccf.org/skills/NSF.php

  36. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge creating company. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  37. Novickis L, Mitasiunas A, Ponomarenko V (2017) Information technology transfer model as a bridge between science and business sector. Procedia Comput Sci 104:120–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. O’Gorman C, Byrne O, Pandya D (2008) How scientists commercialize new knowledge via entrepreneurship. J Technol Transf 33:23–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y (2010) Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  40. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage, Thousans Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pavitt K (1998) The social shaping of the national science base. Res Policy 27:793–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pennie F, Janet R, Kennedy M, Hilton T, Davidson A, Payne A, Brozovic D (2014) Value propositions: a service ecosystems perspective. Mark Theory 14(3):327–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rashdi PI, Qazi MA, Bhutto A (2011) The role of academic entrepreneurs’ experience and building networks. Int J Bus Innov Res 5(2):212–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2007) Research methods for business students, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  45. Schuurman D, De Vocht S, De Cleyn S, Herregodts AL (2017) A structured approach to academic technology transfer: lessons learned from imec’s 101 programme. Technol Innov Manag Rev 7(8):5–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shane S (2002) Executive forum: university technology transfer to entrepreneurial companies. J Bus Ventur 17(6):537–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Siegel DS, Veugelers R, Wright M (2007) Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implication. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 23(4):640–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Spilsbury MJ, Nasi R (2006) The interface of policy research and the policy development process: challenges posed to the forestry community. Forest Policy Econ 8:193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Stock GN, Tatikonda MV (2000) A typology of project level technology transfer processes. J Oper Manag 18:719–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Straub J (2015) In search of technology readiness level (TRL) 10. Aerosp Sci Technol 46:312–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Svensson G (2009) A counter-intuitive views of the deductive research process—clockwise versus anti-clockwise. Eur Bus Rev 21(2):191–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Svensson G (2012) Research process, report structure and journal outlets in scholarly studies: Parallel vs sequential and proactive vs reactive. Eur Bus Rev 24(1):47–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Swamidass PM (2013) University startups as a commercialization alternative: lessons from three contrasting case studies. J Technol Transf 38(6):788–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Szulanski G (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: impediment to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strateg Manag J 17(Winter):27–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Voisey PL, Gornall P, Jones TB (2006) The measurement of success in a business incubation project. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 13(3):454–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. White P (2017) Developing research questions. Macmillan International Higher Education

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wonglimpiyarat J (2010) Commercialization strategies of technology: lessons from Silicon valley. J Technol Transf 35(2):225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The paper is part of the postdoc research held at University of Utah and funded by Ministry of Education, Sindh for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Centre at Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TVC, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA

    Arabella Bhutto

  2. ECE, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA

    Cynthia Furse

Authors
  1. Arabella Bhutto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cynthia Furse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arabella Bhutto .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Abid Abu-Tair

  2. The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Abdelmounaim Lahrech

  3. The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Khalid Al Marri

  4. The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Bassam Abu-Hijleh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Bhutto, A., Furse, C. (2020). Bridging Academic Inventors—TTO Managers Schism: The Lean Canvas for Invention. In: Abu-Tair, A., Lahrech, A., Al Marri, K., Abu-Hijleh, B. (eds) Proceedings of the II International Triple Helix Summit. THS 2018. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 43. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23898-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23898-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23897-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23898-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation