The SIVC synthesises current insights on activities and processes contributing to university-based innovation into an actor- and domain-transcending circular model of value-adding phases. In this sense, the synthesised model primarily serves a heuristic purpose.
To provide a single process model that accurately represents all potential situations of university knowledge valorisation is almost impossible. This is due to the wide variety of possible contextual heterogeneities (for example, in terms of national innovation systems or sector-specific regulations), but also because of the rigid character of stage models, which inevitably oversimplify complex real-world processes. As a consequence of these contextual heterogeneities, the valorisation practice may require deviation from the proposed model’s sequence, in terms of skipping specific steps and executing steps in parallel or in a different order.
The actor- and domain-transcending perspective of the SIVC enables stakeholders to appreciate the full scope of university-based innovation and the full extent of its possible societal impact. This perspective complements models that offer a more isolated and in-depth focus on subprocesses (e.g. transfer of knowledge), specific domains (e.g. the science and industry domains), or certain actors (e.g.
university administrators). The synthesised model may therefore serve a boundary-spanning purpose by increasing reciprocal insight, and thus appreciation, among stakeholders across domains.
Furthermore, the SIVC enables stakeholders to more consciously consider the relevance of steps for their specific cases and thereby more responsibly skip, combine or rearrange steps. Rigorous contextualisation of heuristic models allows for the generation of a tick-the-box process model, providing a true user-friendly toolbox as previously shown in a much simpler form for the probiotics industry (Van den Nieuwboer et al., 2015). Since the process involves a cycle of chained
More importantly, the synthesised model can serve as a toolbox for the organi-sation and improvement of knowledge valoriorgani-sation tools, ultimately improving the beneficial societal impact of knowledge.
“If you don’t know where you are going, you will end up
someplace else” - Yogi Berra
Aken, J. E. v. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences:
the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of management studies, 41(2), 219-246.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Resolving the knowledge paradox: Knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research Policy, 37(10), 1697-1705.
Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Sabaté, F., & Cañabate, A. (2012). Brokering knowledge from universities to the marketplace. Management Decision, 50(7), 1285-1307.
doi:10.1108/00251741211247012
Berkhout, G., Hartmann, D., & Trott, P. (2010). Connecting technological capabilities with market needs using a cyclic innovation model R&D Management, 40(5), 474-490.
Block, F., & Keller, M. (2008). Where Do Innovations Come From? Transformations in the US National Innovation System 1970-2006.
Boehm, D. N., & Hogan, T. (2012). ‘A jack of all trades’: the role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 134-149. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9273-8
Braun, D., & Guston, D. H. (2003). Principal-agent theory and research policy: an introduction.
Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302-308.
Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science (1903-), 48(3), 231-264.
Chrisman, J. J., Hynes, T., & Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(4),
Dehzad, F., Hilhorst, C., de Bie, C., & Claassen, E. (2014). Adopting Health Apps, What’s Hindering Doctors and Patients? Health, 06(16), 2204-2217. doi:10.4236/health.2014.616256
Elpida, S., Galanakis, K., Bakouros, I., & Platias, S. (2010). The spin-off chain. Journal of technology management & innovation, 5(3), 51-68.
Flagg, J. L., Lane, J. P., & Lockett, M. M. (2013). Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model: an evidence-based framework for generating technological innovations with socio-economic impacts.
Implementation Science 8.1 (2013): 21., 8(21).
Fontes, M. (2005). The process of transformation of scientific and technological knowledge into economic value conducted by biotechnology spin-offs. Technovation, 25(4), 339-347.
doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2003.08.004
Garbade, P. J. P., Omta, S. W. F., Fortuin, F. T. J. M., Hall, R., & Leone, G. (2013). The Impact of the Product Generation Life Cycle on Knowledge Valorization at the Public Private Research Partnership, the Centre for BioSystems Genomics. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 67, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2013.07.002
Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93-114. doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2
Godin, B. (2006). The Linear model of innovation the historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(6), 639-667.
Goldhor, R. S., & Lund, R. T. (1983). University-to-industry advanced technology transfer: a case study. Research Policy, 12(3), 121-152.
Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., & Robinson, N.
(2006). Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 13-24. doi:10.1002/chp.47
Hanney, S. R., Grant, J., Wooding, S., & Buxton, M. J. (2004). Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes of health research: the impact of funding by the UK’s ‘Arthritis Research Campaign’. Health Res Policy Syst, 2(1), 4. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-2-4
Ho, M. H.-C., Liu, J. S., Lu, W.-M., & Huang, C.-C. (2013). A new perspective to explore the technology transfer efficiencies in US universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), 247-275. doi:10.1007/s10961-013-9298-7
Hussler, C., Picard, F., & Tang, M. F. (2010). Taking the ivory from the tower to coat the economic world: Regional strategies to make science useful. Technovation, 30(9-10), 508-518. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.06.003
Johnson, W. H. (2011). Managing university technology development using organizational control theory. Research Policy, 40(6), 842-852.
Kaplinsky, R., & Morris, M. (2001). A handbook for value chain research (Vol. 113): IDRC Ottawa.
Kline, S. J. (1985). Innovation is not a linear process. Research Management, 28(4), 36-45.
Lal, J. A., Schulte In den Baumen, T., Morre, S. A., & Brand, A. (2011). Public health and valorization of genome-based technologies: a new model. J Transl Med, 9, 207.
doi:10.1186/1479-5876-9-207
Lane, J. P. (2010). At the Confluence of Academic Research and Business Development-Merging Technology Transfer with Knowledge Translation to Deliver Value. Assistive Technology Outcomes & Benefits (ATOB), 6(1).
Lazonick, W., & Mazzucato, M. (2013). The risk-reward nexus in the innovation-inequality relationship: who takes the risks? Who gets the rewards? Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(4), 1093-1128. doi:10.1093/icc/dtt019
Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2015). University–industry collaboration and regional wealth.
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.
doi:10.1108/13673270910962914
Matsumoto, M., Yokota, S., Naito, K., & Itoh, J. (2010). Development of a model to estimate the economic impacts of R&D output of public research institutes. R&D Management, 40(1), 91-100.
Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., & Cardoso, J. (2007). What makes process models understandable?
Business Process Management (pp. 48-63): Springer.
Moody, D. L. (2005). Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 55(3), 243-276.
doi:10.1016/j.datak.2004.12.005
Mostert, S. P., Ellenbroek, S. P., Meijer, I., van Ark, G., & Klasen, E. C. (2010). Societal output and use of research performed by health research groups. Health Res Policy Syst, 8, 30.
doi:10.1186/1478-4505-8-30
Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22(5), 281-289.
Nelson, H. J., Poels, G., Genero, M., & Piattini, M. (2012). A conceptual modeling quality framework. Software Quality Journal, 20(1), 201-228.
O’Shea, R. P., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 653-666. doi:10.1007/s10961-007-9060-0
OECD. (2013). Commercialising Public Research: New Trends and Strategies. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/commercialising-public-research-new-trends-and-strategies_9789264193321-en
Oortwijn, W. J., Hanney, S. R., Ligtvoet, A., Hoorens, S., Wooding, S., Grant, J., . . . Bouter, L.
M. (2008). Assessing the impact of health technology assessment in The Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 24(3), 259-269. doi:10.1017/S0266462308080355
Pronker, E. S. (2013). Innovation Paradox in Vaccine Target Selection (Vol. 282). Rotterdam:
ERIM - Research in Management.
Pronker, E., Weenen, T., Commandeur, H., Claassen, E., & Osterhaus, A. D. M. E. (2014).
Scratching the surface: Exploratory analysis of key opinion leaders on rate limiting factors in novel adjuvanted-vaccine development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.04.017
Punter, T., Krikhaar, R. L., & Bril, R. J. (2009). Software engineering technology innovation – Turning research results into industrial success. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(6), 993-1003. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2008.12.035
Ramanathan, K. (2008). An overview of technology transfer and technology transfer models. Paper presented at the International Conference on South-South Cooperation for Technology Transfer and Development of Small and Medium Enterprises.
Ranjan, J., & Gera, R. (2012). Bridging the gap in knowledge transfer between academia and practitioners. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(3), 252-273.
doi:10.1108/09513541211213336
Rasmussen, E. (2011). Understanding academic entrepreneurship: Exploring the emergence of university spin-off ventures using process theories. International Small Business Journal, 29(5), 448-471.
Roberts, E. B., & Malone, D. E. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management, 26(1), 17-48.
Rosenberg, N. (1994). Exploring the black box: Technology, economics, and history:
Cambridge University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Vol. 55): Transaction publishers.
Shohet, S., & Prevezer, M. (1996). UK biotechnology: institutional linkages, technology transfer and the role of intermediaries. R&D Management, 26(3), 283-298.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-133.
doi:10.1016/s1047-8310(03)00007-5
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic Entrepreneurship: Time for a Rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582-595. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12116
Simpson, D. D. (2002). A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22(4), 171-182.
Splinter, M., Roos, E., Claassen, E., & Van de Burgwal, L. H. (2017). Stage-gates and barries in the integrated photonics innovation process. Submitted.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation:
Brookings Institution Press.
Stone, V. I., & Lane, J. P. (2012). Modeling technology innovation: How science, engineering, and industry methods can combine to generate beneficial socioeconomic impacts.
Implementation Science, 7(1), 44.
Strandburg, K. J. (2005). Curiosity-driven research and university technology transfer.
University entrepreneurship and technology transfer: Process, design, and intellectual property, 93-123.
Swamidass, P. M., & Vulasa, V. (2008). Why university inventions rarely produce income?
Bottlenecks in university technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 343-363. doi:10.1007/s10961-008-9097-8
Van de Burgwal, L. H., Reperant, L. A., Osterhaus, A. D., Iancu, S. C., Pronker, E. S., & Claassen, E. (2016). Self-Centric and Altruistic Unmet Needs for Ebola: Barriers to International Preparedness. Disaster Med Public Health Prep, 10(4), 644-648. doi:10.1017/dmp.2016.64
Van den Nieuwboer, M., Van de Burgwal, L. H. M., & Claassen, E. (2015). A quantitative key-opinion-leader analysis of innovation barriers in probiotic research and development:
valorisation and improving the tech transfer cycle. PharmaNutrition, 10.1016/j.
phanu.2015.09.003. doi:10.1016/j.phanu.2015.09.003
Van Geenhuizen, M. (2010). Valorisation of knowledge: preliminary results on valorisation paths and obstacles in bringing university knowledge to market.
Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147-175. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(03)00107-0
Weenen, T. C., Pronker, E. S., Commandeur, H. R., & Claassen, E. (2013). Barriers to innovation in the medical nutrition industry: A quantitative key opinion leader analysis. PharmaNutrition, 1(3), 79-85. doi:10.1016/j.phanu.2013.04.001
Weenen, T. C., Pronker, E. S., Commandeur, H. R., Claassen, E. (2013). Barriers to innovation in the medical nutrition industry, a quantitative key opinion leader analysis. PharmaNutrition.
1(3). 79-85.
Wood, M. S. (2011). A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 54(2), 153-161. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2010.11.004
Xie, Z., Hall, J., McCarthy, I. P., Skitmore, M., & Shen, L. (2016). Standardization efforts: The relationship between knowledge dimensions, search processes and innovation outcomes.
Stichting Maatschappij en Onderneming
SMO is the think tank for the Netherlands since 1968. The foundation initiates and stimulates the dialogue between business and society. SMO translates insights from scientific research and business expertise into comprehensive and applicable information.
SMO has a variety of instruments at her disposal which are used for the distribution of insights, knowledge and experiences. This knowledge can contribute to a substantiated addressing of both current and future issues. Next to the distribution of knowledge, SMO advances and facilitates the development of new insights.
The use of effective instruments combined with the use of a broad and valuable network enables SMO to point out chances and threats that are the consequence of a changing context of business. The academic values and expertise that belong to the core of SMO as an renowned institute are being guarded by the board.
About the Authors
Linda van de Burgwal, MSc is an academic entrepreneur, combining a part-time researcher and lecturer position at the Athena Institute, VU University Amsterdam with consultancy activities that support business development in the life sciences. She holds a bachelor degree in Biomedical Sciences and obtained a (cum laude) Master’s degree in Management, Policy Analysis and Entrepreneurship in the Health and Life Sciences in 2009. In 2009, she co-founded a successful consultancy company and subsequently worked in different positions as entrepreneur, business developer and project manager, with a specific focus on innovation and knowledge valorisation processes. Linda is managing partner of FFUND and is currently finishing her PhD dissertation on tools for innovation and knowledge valorization processes.
Mark van der Waal, MSc is a doctoral researcher at the Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, studying the roles of intellectual capital and intellectual property rights in organisational value creation processes. Mark obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Biomedical Sciences from the Radboud University Nijmegen and subsequently a Master’s degree in Management, Policy Analysis and Entrepreneurship in the Health and Life Sciences from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, graduating with a thesis on optimising the use of academic knowledge in the innovation ecosystem.
Prof. dr. Eric Claassen is professor Entrepreneurship in Health and Life Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in the Netherlands. He has an extensive track record in life sciences venturing and was the winner of the Dutch 1 million euro NGI Valorisation Award for ‘Excellent deal making with Industry’. He acts as supervisory board member to several Dutch companies, is Chairman of the PAB of Pfizer Consumer Health (USA) and Chairman of the SAB of Christian Hansen A/S (Denmark). Moreover, he is CEO of Vironovative BV, where he won the 1 million Euro Dutch NGI Valorization Award for “Excellent Deal Making with Industry”. In 2001 he was appointed as the first Biopartner professor “Entrepreneurship in the Life Sciences” on behalf of the Ministry of Economic Affairs at the Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. This chair, which he still holds, was transformed in 2005 to “Business management and Entrepreneurship in Health & Life Sciences with a tenured Full Professorship (0.4 FTE). In 2018, ten PhD students are working under his direct guidance at the cross roads of Medical/Life Sciences and Business development and IP management.