Suchergebnisse

"Technology transfer has been the vanguard of progress and an inexhaustible fountain for productivity, empowerment, and convenience" (Mings, 1998). Since then, no consensus definition has been presented due to the complexity of the topic that requires time to evolve. (Bengoa et al., 2021). Considering the excellence in business management the process of technology transfer is certainly composed by advantages and disadvantages regardless its great importance on innovation management (Lager Hassan-Beck, 2021).From a broader perspective, research streams and important topics were identified by Bengoa et al. (2021) such as (a) technology transfer in university (academic entrepreneurship, intellectual property, new ventures, technology transfer offices, and university–industry relationship), (b) international technology transfer, (c) intra-firm technology transfer, (d) absorptive capacity, and (e) public innovation policies (Bengoa et al., 2021). Considering the various agents involved in technology transfer (transferors and transferees) and its bidirectional process, the authors highlighted that limited attention has been paid to detecting the difficulties and efforts in an effective university–industry relationship from the perspective of firms (Bengoa et al., 2021).Yet, due to the institutionalization of the technology transfer process in the university context, a wide array of organizational components dedicated to support this process has emerged (Good et al., 2019). Therefore, drawing upon a holistic view, this editorial point out organizational perspectives that support the ecosystem of commercialization of university technological research, hereafter referred to as technology transfer to bring a relevant framework for analyzing the different organizational components that encompass the related challenges.We assume this organizational perspective also considering that a recent literature points to the emergence of new modes for the facilitation of academic entrepreneurship, such as university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems and accelerators (Balven et al., 2018; Schaeffer Matt, 2016; Siegel Wright, 2015) which do rely on an organizational purpose, stablished activities, structure of organization and people to support the process of developing and transferring technologies.Organizational purpose reflects the first perspective of this holistic view meaning the main reason for firms' existence or their conception of the desired ends. From the purpose, firms define the activities, the second perspective, which consist of the different tasks performed to fulfil the purpose. Supporting the performance of these activities, firms design an ownership structure, the third perspective, that formally indicates how activities and tasks are divided between individuals and groups of individuals commonly considered to have a significant impact on technology transfer performance. The fourth perspective, people and organizational culture typically considered to be the shared social knowledge including the values, norms and rules, which in turn can shape individuals behavior (Colquitt et al., 2008; Good et al., 2019; Nadler et al., 1997; Scott, 1992).To cover the different stages of commercialization of technologies and more likely successful outcomes, indeed, technology transfer offices is characterized as an organizational purpose in the literature tend to focus either on licensing technology or forming a firm around a technology (Bozeman et al., 2015; Schaeffer Matt, 2016). While, science parks (Díez-Vial Montoro-Sánchez, 2016), incubators (Bergek Norrman, 2008), and university venture funds (Pierrakis Saridakis, 2019) are purposes more concerned with ensuring that the firm formed around successfully university technologies to build commercial products. Together these organizational purposes are likely to provide a complete coverage of the distinct stages of technology transfer process into an ecosystem.The extent activities in technology transfer led firms at early-stage development (e.g., support for research and intellectual property rights) to later stages (e.g., property management, business support, or network development). However, one activity that appear as a common sense is the substantial extent in internal and external networking with the purpose of supporting the commercialization of technology. According to Good et al. (2019), these boundaries that span network activities may be redundant or complementary and may prevent or foster competitive service providers rather than partners in the effective commercialization of university technology.Regarding the elements of structure, the literature presents overlaps in its components being common in terms of ownership, governance, and physical location. The unity in terms of ownership prevails the university. As standalone structures are quite common, firms prefer to own the others to evolve in technology transfer instead of new emerging structures such as enterprise labs and garages, or offices of engagement (Pauwels et al., 2016; Wright et al., 2017). Further, university' size and location are major differences identified in the literature as structure issues.People and organizational culture elements are important shortcomings in the literature. Some capabilities frequently appear in the research such as capability to understand complex technologies, experience in intellectual property rights, understanding of the academic environment and how technological research is conducted (Jefferson et al., 2017). However, composition of, and evolution in, the teams of technology transfer and their role distribution and identity are critical aspects highlights as absent. Entrepreneurial culture, Intra- and inter-individual micro-processes, the role of leaders in the evolution of the ecosystem to support technology transfer are new avenues for academic research presented by Good et al. (2019).Overall, little is known about the effect of technology transfer from industry's side and even less from the perspective of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which relatively more adept at absorbing knowledge from external sources, such as universities comparing to large firms (Feldman et al., 2002). Cultural and informational barriers between universities and firms, especially for smaller may be additional impediments for technology transfer (Bengoa et al., 2021; Good et al., 2019) and deserve more attention from researchers.Furthermore, the impact of academic entrepreneurship beyond the activities of licensing, patenting, or creating new ventures, for example, more informal activities and initiatives that may require new structures or management systems to implement them should be part of the new generation of publications (Bengoa et al., 2021). In the future, the challenges associated with information security in society should also impact advances in this research field, since cyber-attacks arise through connectivity with direct implications for technology and knowledge transfer.

Innovativeness! Where is its place? Among several changes around the world because the pandemic of COVID-19, where would be the real place of innovation? Looking at years ago, we majority saw a technological perspective about innovation to attend demanding of business market. Today, we are sure that innovation assume and take new places socially and economically, which demanding for researchers' additional skills and abilities to follow the dynamism of this scientific field.Researching about innovation become a challenge because it demands to put a deep effort to booster knowledge about its taxonomy, nature, definitions, mechanisms and theorical foundations. All researchers must provoke in their studies an enhancement of these basic perspectives about innovation in terms of keeping them alive or promote radical change to raise the evolution of innovation theory. Therefore, we run through these dimensions in the editorial to encourage researchers not to forget to contribute to some of these fields of innovation research.Taxonomy of innovation is presented in various ways in the literature. Eight different types are found including replication, redefinition, forward incrementation, advance forward incrementation, redirection, reconstruction, re-initiation, and integration (Agarwal Verma, 2019). This information is relevant to give us how innovation offer a tong of possibilities for scientific research beyond of technological perspectives as we are seen nowadays.As definition, innovation would be seen like a process of interrelated activities to introduce and apply new ideas, processes, procedures, or device and systems designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, the organization, or wider society (Cabrilo Grubic-Nesic, 2013; Rogers, 1995). Innovation may refer to a process in which an organization must actively develop new knowledge to solve identified problems (Nonaka, 2005) highlights that it depends heavily on knowledge (Gavrilova et al., 2018). It brings a perspective that innovation demand more than technology existence, it demands people engaged, structure available and a huge level of goodwill, cooperation and applied knowledge.The mechanisms describe in the literature adopted a multidimensional analysis, however, to synthetize we adopt March (1991) who bring two forms of innovation mechanisms; exploitative and exploratory, which means innovation could be realized through the exploitation of existing knowledge and processes, or the exploration of new knowledge and processes (March, 1991). It means, to innovate require work with existence resources and pursue new ones when they are necessary.Innovation is also considered crucial in solving problems of social and economic inclusion and in improving health and environmental outcomes (Porter Kramer, 2011; Tracey Stott, 2017), and in this vein we highlight the main nature of innovation to assist people and enterprises to prosper in the world.In theoretical foundation, Schumpeter's original innovation concept is indeed broad enough and encompass different sectors such as services and manufacturing (Drejer, 2004). Most innovation studies focus on technological innovation within manufacturing, reflecting that innovation theory has its roots in a time where manufacturing was still the major economic activity. A synthesis approach of service innovation appears in a sequence bringing to additional aspects of innovation (Coombs Miles, 2000) and more recently the social innovation has been assuming new approach towards social and economic sustainability aspects combined (Mulgan et al., 2007).Developing innovation in the scientific field certainly requires specific talents. Taxonomy aggrandizes innovation possibilities, definitions offer likelihood to foster new perspectives, nature reminds that innovation is more than technology, mechanisms inform the requirements to innovate, and theoretical foundation exist to organize the history of innovation. Therefore, knowing about these perspectives can clarify how important it is to have an open and creative mind when we are expanding the history of innovation, by writing or by creating products and/or services.Diving into this challenge of researching innovation brings in its essence a relevant vision of the alignment between science and reality, joining forces for effective advances in innovation. Going beyond current research sources, escaping academic slush, and delving deeper into knowledge in search of real advancement. So, it requires resilience, discipline, partnerships, and continuous focus.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has established itself as a transformative force in the digital era, influencing not only companies but also the field of academic research. This technological evolution, together with the exponential growth of data, is reshaping organizations, societies, and economies (George, Osinga, Lavie, & Scott, 2016). However, the application of AI in academic research is still in its early stages, and many academic journals are beginning to address its judicious use.

In this editorial comment, we highlight the importance of establishing clear connections between academic research and management and innovation practices. We emphasize that, in addition to advancing theoretical knowledge, research should also offer practical contributions, avoiding being merely ceremonial and becoming central in justifying the importance of the work. The references from Bartunek & Rynes (2010) and Simsek et al. (2022) provide a framework for creating well-defined and user-centered practical implications, recognizing the specific needs of the various target audiences. The application of the proposed roadmap in the analysis of innovation articles suggests how practical contributions can be more effectively communicated and potentially adopted by managers. This editorial underscores the need for research that not only contributes to theory but also promotes practical and sustainable changes in management.