@article {1230,
	title = {Using Action Research to Organize Technology Transfer in Complex Innovation Contexts},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {04/2019},
	pages = {17-26},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Technology transfer projects increasingly consist of multiple, diverse organizations, with each pursuing their own agenda as well as that of the overarching programme. In this article, we adopt a participatory action research methodology in order to explain and improve the coordination of the autonomous innovation activities within an organizationally complex project. The context of the research involved the transfer of rice production technology from China to Mozambique. The action research identified four categories of boundary within the project that were hindering performance: Intellectual/Land property rights; Public/Private sector logics; Inside/Outside programme; and Collaboration/Competition between programme actors. The process of co-inquiry with stakeholders enabled by the action research allowed programme actors to reach an understanding of others, and it created a new thinking space for mutual problem solving. By these means, the action research process makes a resource of the differences between stakeholders rather than it being seen as a barrier to be compromised through negotiation.},
	keywords = {action research, agricultural innovation, boundaries, international collaboration, technology transfer},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1230},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1230},
	author = {Armando Machevo Ussivane and Paul Ellwood}
}
@article {1094,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (August 2017)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {08/2017},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {academic spin-offs, business model development, car sharing, incubation, leadership, Machiavelli, management, organizational culture, research institutes, researchers, sharing economy, social media, technology transfer},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1094},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1123,
	title = {Promoting Entrepreneurial Commitment: The Benefits of Interdisciplinarity},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {12/2017},
	pages = {6-13},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article is the first to examine the relationship between interdisciplinarity and entrepreneurial commitment in academic spin-offs. Building on literature on interdisciplinarity, academic entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial intention, we analyzed the development of nine interdisciplinary spin-off teams comprising expertise from science, industry, and design. Our findings suggest that interdisciplinary teams engage with their ideas, maintain productive interaction, and successfully implement these ideas. Subjects in this study thoroughly developed their project proposals and implementation strategies by examining them from multiple angles. They believed not only in the value of these projects, but in their own ability to see them through. They found one another{\textquoteright}s contributions highly inspirational and experienced a strong sense of responsibility and motivation. Communication within the teams was well managed, and tasks were clearly defined and distributed. Based on our findings, we put forward a number of propositions about the positive effects of interdisciplinarity on entrepreneurial commitment and conclude with implications for future research and practice.},
	keywords = {academic spin-offs, entrepreneurial commitment, interdisciplinarity, team composition, teamwork, technology transfer},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1123},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1123},
	author = {Franziska Brodack and Anna Sinell}
}
@article {1091,
	title = {Q\&A. Are Universities Ready for Knowledge Commercialization?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {07/2017},
	pages = {63-68},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {commercialization, entrepreneurship, knowledge, research, technology transfer, universities},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1091},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1091},
	author = {Mohammad Saud Khan}
}
@article {1095,
	title = {A Structured Approach to Academic Technology Transfer: Lessons Learned from imec{\textquoteright}s 101 Programme},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {08/2017},
	pages = {5-14},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we describe imec{\textquoteright}s 101 Programme for academic technology transfer and explain how it supports researchers by following a structured process in a limited amount of time and by carefully involving different stakeholders and people with relevant skills and expertise. The programme combines insights in terms of processes and of team composition from the entrepreneurship literature and puts them into practice in an internal incubation programme that is generated from the bottom-up. Based on hands-on experiences and interviews with key stakeholders in the process, we evaluate the programme and distill lessons learned. The article highlights the importance of a structured technology transfer process in the early stages of opportunity discovery and entrepreneurial action, and it offers insights on team formation for academic spin-offs.},
	keywords = {academic spin-off, entrepreneurial action, entrepreneurship, incubation, research valorization, technology transfer},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1095},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1095},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Stan De Vocht and Sven De Cleyn and Aron-Levi Herregodts}
}
@article {1004,
	title = {Q\&A. How Can a University Drive an Open Innovation Ecosystem?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {07/2016},
	pages = {48-51},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {ecosystems, Open innovation, public{\textendash}private partnerships, technology transfer, university{\textendash}industry cooperation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1004},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1004},
	author = {Gonzalo Le{\'o}n and Roberto Mart{\'\i}nez}
}
@article {810,
	title = {Commercialization and Public Good: Conflict, Complement, or Critical Component?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {07/2014},
	pages = {27-35},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The controversy regarding the role of science in society {\textendash} and how science can best achieve its role {\textendash} may well date as far back as the beginnings of science itself. The specific arguments and the possible mechanisms for science to impact society, however, have changed over time. This article picks up the conversation with regards to the specific role of publicly funded science, presuming, similar to Brecht in this article{\textquoteright}s opening quotation, that publicly funded science has the goal of making positive contributions to society. 

To achieve this goal, today{\textquoteright}s scientists and research managers face a myriad options of publication venues, protection mechanism, and collaborations with external partners including licensing and other options for commercialization. Oftentimes, the goal of achieving positive contributions to society is perceived as being in fundamental conflict with the restrictions many commercialization arrangements place on the use of knowledge. This article argues that, although commercialization may at times conflict with the goal of achieving positive contributions to society, it can also be complementary to pursuits towards societal contributions, or even a critical component in achieving the desired positive contributions to society. More specifically, it suggests that the use of the term {\textquotedblleft}science for the public good{\textquotedblright} as description of the goal to achieve positive societal contributions might create confusion with the economic term {\textquotedblleft}public good{\textquotedblright}. Thus, it seeks to reframe the discussion of how science can contribute to society in an era of increased openness and interaction. },
	keywords = {commercialization, intellectual property, public good, publicly funded science, science in society, societal benefits, technology transfer, university research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/810},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/810},
	author = {R. Sandra Schillo}
}
@article {668,
	title = {University-SME Collaboration and Open Innovation: Intellectual-Property Management Tools and the Roles of Intermediaries},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {03/2013},
	pages = {33-41},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In 2009, the Conseil de la science et de la technologie du Qu{\'e}bec (CST) made 13 recommendations to the Government of Quebec in order to shift innovative actors towards open-innovation practices adapted to the province{\textquoteright}s context: diversified economic sectors, a majority of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), public universities, etc. Among these recommendations are: i) to set up flexible mechanisms to promote research collaboration between public-private sectors such as universities and SMEs, and ii) to optimize intermediation bodies{\textquoteright} contribution to establish open-innovation practices. Furthermore, the lack of adequate understanding and tools for the management of intellectual property (IP) was identified as a major inhibitor of open-innovation practices, to which actors should pay specific attention. In this article, we present results and recommendations from a field study focused on two groups of actors: i) companies involved in collaborative innovation and ii) intermediary agents enabling innovation and technology transfer. Our first goal was to shed some light on factors that facilitate open innovation through improved university-enterprise collaborations and, more importantly, that attempt to overcome the irritants related to IP management. Our second goal was to analyze the roles of diverse intermediaries in the fostering of successful collaborations between universities and SMEs. 

Our study yielded three findings: i) SMEs do not care about understanding and improving their capabilities about IP and are not equipped with adequate tools and best practices for managing IP and for managing the overall collaborative mechanisms in general; ii) this gap in preparation for open innovation is persistent, since even the intermediaries, whose role is to guide SMEs in university-enterprise collaborations, suffer themselves from the lack of appropriate IP transfer and sharing tools, and do not perceive the need to offer better support in this regard; and iii) overall, current IP-transfer and collaboration-management tools are not sophisticated enough to provide appropriate support for the implementation of open innovation, by which we mean more open and collaborative innovation in the context of university-enterprise collaborations.},
	keywords = {intellectual property, intermediaries, IP management, Open innovation, technology transfer, university-enterprise collaboration, university-SME collaboration},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/668},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/668},
	author = {Isabelle Deschamps and Maria G. Macedo and Christian Eve-Levesque}
}
