Identification and Priority Setting of Alternative Mechanisms of Commercialization of University Agricultural Research

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Graduate PhD., Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Faculty of Agricultural Economics and Development, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Faculty of Agricultural Economics and Development, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

Abstract

This two-phase research aimed to identify and prioritize alternatives of commercialization of university agricultural research. By a three-round Delphi study, the first phase was conducted in order to identify alternatives and criteria of alternative mechanisms for commercialization of university agricultural research. Using AHP, 6 alternatives and 8 criteria of commercialization of university agricultural research were prioritized in the second phase. Respecting these alternatives and criteria, a decision making tree was outlined. Data was collected through pair wise comparison 15 questionnaires filled by a sample of experienced agricultural faculty members and Expert Choice software used to analysis data. Based on the relative weight, the alternatives prioritized as: (1) Joint venture between university and industrial and private sector for developing and commercial exploiting of university research and technology, (2) Setting up a firm for commercial exploitation of university research and technology (Spin off), (3)Sale of intellectual property rights arising from university research, (4)Licensing patents arising from university research, (5) Delivering engineering and technical services and, (6) Setting up a firm by faculty members for commercial exploitation of university research and technology (start up or Spin out).

Keywords

References

  1. Davies J.(1987). The entrepreneurial and adaptative university: characteristics of its organization and operation. Int J Inst Manag High Educ 2(1):102–104
  2. Davodi H, Shabanali Fami H, & Kalantari K. (2012). An Investigation of Technology Development Barriers in Agricultural Science and Technology Parks of Tehran University. Journal of Science and Technology Policy; 4 (2) :1-10(In Farsi).
  3. Etzkowitz, H  & Leydesdorff L. (2001). Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy, Continuum, London, 2001.
  4. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy 32:109–21.
  5. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B.R.C.,(2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29 (2), 313–330.
  6. Fakour B, & Haji Hosseini H.  (2008). Academic Entrepreneurship and commercialization of research results in Iranian universities (Case study of seven Iranian universities). Journal of Science and Technology Policy; 1 (2) :59-71(In Farsi)
  7. Ghazinoori S, & Ali Hamadi A. (2008). Prioritizing policy instruments for supporting new technology-based firms in Iran, using a fuzzy MCDM model. ,Journal of Science and Technology Policy;1(3) :73-79 (In Farsi).
  8. Ghodsipour, S. (2000). Analytical Hierarchy process (AHP), Amirkabir University press (3th ed) (In Farsi).
  9. Hooman, H.A. (2000). Statistical Inference in Behavioral Research. Tehran: Parsa Publsher, 576p. (In Farsi).

10. Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M. & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, Vol.32, pp. 1555-1568.

11. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S.(2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34, 253–257.

12. Litan, Robert E., Mitchell, Lesa, & Reedy, E.J.(2007). Commercialization University Innovation: Alternative Approaches. Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches. NBER Working Paper. JEL No. O18,13,033, 034, 038

13. Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh–Dole Act in the United States. Research Policy, 31, 399–418.

14. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F.(2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.

15. Pasha Sharifi, G., & Najafi Zand,  H.(2006). Statistical Methods in Social Sciences, Tehran, Sokhan Publications, 383p. (In Farsi).

16. Saaty. T. L. (1990); Decision Making For Leaders, RWS Publications, USA

17. Seigel, S. (2004). Non-parametric statistic for the behavioral science. Translated by Karimi, Y. Second edition. Allameh Tabatabaei University publication. Tehran, 384 p. (In Farsi).

18. Siegel, D. S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A.,(2007), "The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: organizational and societal implications"; Industrial and Corporate Change 16: 489-504.

19. Umam, Kh. (2008), Higher education institution and technology transfer. School of Business Management, ITB.

World Bank (2007), Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening of research systems. Washington DC, USA: World Bank.

Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research
Volume 50, Issue 1
February 2019
Pages 189-200

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics