Research PaperNo Access

The Front-End of R&D at Non-profit Research Centers — How Does Research Produce Impact?

Associação Fraunhofer Portugal Research, R. Alfredo Allen 455/461, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal

E-mail Address: rui.castro@fraunhofer.pt

Corresponding author.

and

FEUP Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto, INESC TEC — INESC Technology and Science, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, s/n 4200-465 Porto, Portugal

E-mail Address: jjpf@fe.up.pt

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877023500141Cited by:3 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

This study reviewed the literature to understand “how does research produce impact?”. Despite all discussion threads in the literature, it was clear that management of the Front-end of Innovation (FEI) of non-profit research centers has received little attention. As a result, this study was a first step toward proposing a model that describes the Front-End of R&D at non-profit Research Centers. This paper is an Integrative Literature Review that follows the PRISMA statement methodology. Building on FEI2O’s High-Level Ontology, this paper’s contribution elicited relevant constructs from the literature and took the first steps to extend it to the Front-End of R&D. New research-related concepts such as the RESEARCH CONCEPT, the INFLUENCING FACTORS, and the RESEARCH PROJECT were introduced. The RESEARCH PROJECT produces RESULTS that may have an IMPACT ON SOCIETY. All these concepts are interconnected through a feedback loop that feeds the FEI2O: STRATEGIC PURPOSE of the non-profit research center, contributing to the advancement of its research strategy, objectives, and goals. The current work contributed to understanding a domain of knowledge that is of interest to researchers, research managers, and those interested in bringing new scientific research results to society.

Keywords:

References

Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U. and Lavoie, F. F. [2007] Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27, 5: 306–318. https://doi.org/1016/j.technovation.2006.10.003 Crossref, Google Scholar
Aria, M. and Cuccurullo, C. [2017] bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 4: 959–975. https://doi.org/1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 Crossref, Google Scholar
Barney, J. [1991] Firm Resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 1: 99–120. https://doi.org/1177/014920639101700108 Crossref, Google Scholar
Basadur, M., Runco, M. A. and Vegaxy, L. A. [2000] Understanding how creative thinking skills, attitudes and behaviors work together: A causal process model. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 2: 77–100. https://doi.org/1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01203.x Crossref, Google Scholar
Bazan, C. [2019] “From lab bench to store shelves:” A translational research & development framework for linking university science and engineering research to commercial outcomes. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management — JET-M, 53, 1–18. https://doi.org/1016/j.jengtecman.2019.05.001 Google Scholar
Bercovitz, J. and Feldman, M. [2008] Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 1: 69–89. https://doi.org/1287/orsc.1070.0295 Crossref, Google Scholar
Bhutto, A. and Furse, C. [2020] Bridging academic inventors — TTO managers schism: The lean canvas for invention. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 43, 45–58. https://doi.org/1007/978-3-030-23898-8_5 Crossref, Google Scholar
Boyack, K. W. and Klavans, R. [2010] Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 12: 2389–2404. https://doi.org/1002/asi.21419 Crossref, Google Scholar
Bozeman, B. [2000] Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 627–655. https://doi.org/1016/S0048-7333,99:00093-1 Crossref, Google Scholar
Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R. [2006] In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52, 1: 68–82. https://doi.org/1287/mnsc.1050.0470 Crossref, Google Scholar
Castro, R. N. and Ferreira, J. J. P. [2020] Project portfolio management in the front-end of innovation of research centers: A literature review. Technology Innovation Management Review, 10, 46–59. https://doi.org/22215/TIMREVIEW/1409 Crossref, Google Scholar
Cho, I., Kwak, Y. H. and Jun, J. [2019] Sustainable idea development mechanism in University Technology Commercialization (UTC): Perspectives from dynamic capabilities framework. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11, 21. https://doi.org/3390/su11216156 Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. [1990] Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admnistrative Science Quarterly, 35, 1: 128–152, https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553. Crossref, Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. [1989] Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99, 397: 569–596. https://doi.org/2307/2233763 Crossref, Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R. and Walsh, J. P. [2002] Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 1: 1–23. https://doi.org/1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273 Crossref, Google Scholar
Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N. and Sampat, B. N. [2002] How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48, 1: 61–72. https://doi.org/1287/mnsc.48.1.61.14272 Crossref, Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J. and Kleinschmidt, E. J. [2000] New product portfolio management: Practices and performance. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 28, 1: 13–29. https://doi.org/1111/1540-5885.1640333 Google Scholar
Crossan, M. M. and Apaydin, M. [2010] A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 6: 1154–1191. https://doi.org/1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x Crossref, Google Scholar
D’Este, P. and Patel, P. [2007] University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 9: 1295–1313. https://doi.org/1016/j.respol.2007.05.002 Crossref, Google Scholar
Daghfous, A. [2004] An empirical investigation of the roles of prior knowledge and learning activities in technology transfer. Technovation, 24, 12: 939–953. https://doi.org/1016/S0166-4972, 03:00059-2 Crossref, Google Scholar
Debackere, K. and Veugelers, R. [2005] The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34, 3: 321–342. https://doi.org/1016/j.respol.2004.12.003 Crossref, Google Scholar
Di Gregorio, D. and Shane, S. [2003] Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227. https://doi.org/1016/S0048-7333, 02:00097-5 Crossref, Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Graebner, M. E. [2007] Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1: 25–32. https://doi.org/5465/AMJ.2007.24160888 Crossref, Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. [2000] The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 2: 109–123. https://doi.org/1016/S0048-7333, 99:00055-4 Crossref, Google Scholar
Gmür, M. [2003] Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57, 1: 27–57. https://doi.org/1023/A:1023619503005 Crossref, Google Scholar
González-Pernía, J. L., Kuechle, G. and Peña-Legazkue, I. [2013] An assessment of the determinants of university technology transfer. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 1: 6–17. https://doi.org/1177/0891242412471847 Crossref, Google Scholar
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J. and Ram, S. [2004] Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 28, 1: 75–105. https://doi.org/2307/25148625 Crossref, Google Scholar
Hu, X., Tang, Y. and Motohashi, K. [2020] Varied university-industry knowledge transfer channels and product innovation performance in Guangdong manufacturing firms. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 19, 2: 197–207, https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1747367. Crossref, Google Scholar
Hung, C. L. and Shiu, P. J. [2014] Evaluating project performance by removing external effects: Implications to the efficiency of research and development resource allocation. Research Evaluation, 23, 4: 366–380. https://doi.org/1093/reseval/rvu022 Crossref, Google Scholar
Igarashi, Y. and Okada, M. [2015] Social innovation through a dementia project using innovation architecture. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 97, 193–204. https://doi.org/1016/j.techfore.2015.01.001 Crossref, Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. B. [1989] Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 79, 5: 957–970. https://doi.org/4337/9781786432797.00018 Google Scholar
Juanola-Feliu, E., Colomer-Farrarons, J., Miribel-Català, P., Samitier, J. and Valls-Pasola, J. [2012] Market challenges facing academic research in commercializing nano-enabled implantable devices for in-vivo biomedical analysis. Technovation, 32, 3–4: 193–204. https://doi.org/1016/j.technovation.2011.09.007 Crossref, Google Scholar
Kirchberger, M. A. and Pohl, L. [2016] Technology commercialization: A literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 5: 1077–1112. https://doi.org/1007/s10961-016-9486-3 Crossref, Google Scholar
Legault, L. [2017] Self-determination theory. Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T. (eds), 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1162-1. Google Scholar
Lenhari, L. C., Leite, M. V. and Lizárraga, M. G. (2014). Approach for evaluation and prioritization of a technological idea portfolio supporting the management of an R&D Lab of multinational corporation in the Brazilian consumer electronics’ industry. In PICMET 2014 — Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology, Proceedings: Infrastructure and Service Integration (pp. 2626–2635). Available at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6921051/?casa_token=sJgGvB5St5MAAAAA:61p_xFlBEJ_J4M_BjBDIAbpG1r6E2CcNHDc1XxoTDjXvNlmTdlPnQKYzVnZ37hdodIRiBmpqA. Google Scholar
Lepine, J. and Wilcox-King, A. [2010] Editors’ comments: Developing novel theoretical insight from reviews of existing theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 35, 4: 506–509, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.53502455. Google Scholar
Lockett, A. and Wright, M. [2005] Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 7: 1043–1057. https://doi.org/1016/j.respol.2005.05.006 Crossref, Google Scholar
Loyarte, E., Garcia-Olaizola, I., Marcos, G., Moral, M., Gurrutxaga, N., Florez-Esnal, J. and Azua, I. [2018] Model for calculating the intellectual capital of research centres. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19, 4: 787–813. https://doi.org/1108/JIC-01-2017-0021 Crossref, Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. [1991] Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20, 1: 1–12, https://doi.org/1016/0048-7333, 91:90080-A. Crossref, Google Scholar
Mansfield, E. [1998] Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy, 26, 7–8: 773–776, https://doi.org/1016/s0048-7333, 97:00043-7. Crossref, Google Scholar
Markham, S. K. and Kingon, A. I. [2004] TURNING technical advantage into product advantage. The PDMA ToolBook 2 for New Product Development, 71–91. Available at https://11220527-b037-458d-8d7a-1b9030c00b53/Paper/p2293. Google Scholar
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D. G. [2009] Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 10: 1006–1012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005. Crossref, Google Scholar
Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F. and Surlemont, B. [2002] A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22, 5: 281–289, https://doi.org/1016/S0166-4972, 01:00019-0. Crossref, Google Scholar
Nonaka, I. [1994] A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 1: 14–37. https://doi.org/1287/orsc.5.1.14 Crossref, Google Scholar
Novikov, A. M. and Novikov, D. A. [2013] Research methodology: From philosophy of science to research design. In CRC Press (Ed.), Research Methodology: From Philosophy of Science to Research Design, Vol. 2. Crossref, Google Scholar
Noy, N. F. and McGuinness, D. L. [2001] Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory. Google Scholar
O’Raghallaigh, P., Sammon, D. and Murphy, C. [2011] Towards an ontology of innovation models — a conceptual framework. In 19th European Conference on Information Systems. ECIS, 2011. Google Scholar
Object Management Group. (2019). About the Unified Modeling Language Specification Version 2.5.1, Object Managemt Group. https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/. Google Scholar
OECD (2015). Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en. Google Scholar
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. [2010] Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers, Vol. 1, John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
Pereira, A. R., Ferreira, J. J. P. and Lopes, A. [2020] A knowledge representation of the beginning of the innovation process: The front end of innovation integrative ontology (FEI2O). Data and Knowledge Engineering, 125, 101760. https://doi.org/1016/j.datak.2019.101760 Crossref, Google Scholar
Pereira, A. R., Pinto Ferreira, J. J. and Lopes, A. [2017] Front end of innovation: An Integrative Literature Review. Journal of Innovation Management, 5, 1: 22–39. https://doi.org/1080/00074910500117081 Crossref, Google Scholar
Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. [2007] University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 4: 259–280. https://doi.org/1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.x Crossref, Google Scholar
Philbin, S. P. [2013] Managing university-industry research partnerships through a process of alignment. In 2013 Proceedings of PICMET 2013: Technology Management in the IT-Driven Services, 1848–1859. Available at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6641676/?casa_token=zAa_DUs-CEMAAAAA:k667u2m_NjVTBPZFRLqgS_6jE4arsHDbbuUgDnHOUBPbAwN2zb1gLyiVC-vGECZGndS9fd1Clg. Google Scholar
Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C. and Prescott, J. E. [2020] Advancing theory with review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57, 2: 351–376. https://doi.org/1111/joms.12549 Crossref, Google Scholar
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W. and Smith-Doerr, L. [1996] Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 116–145. Available at https://scholar.google.pt/scholar?hl=pt-PT&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=interorganizational+collaboration+and+the+locus+of+innovation%3A+networks+of+learning+in+biotechnology&btnG=. Crossref, Google Scholar
Powers, J. B. and McDougall, P. P. [2005] University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 3: 291–311. https://doi.org/1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.008 Crossref, Google Scholar
Poyago-Theotoky, J., Beath, J. and Siegel, D. S. [2002] Universities and fundamental research: Reflections on the growth of university-industry partnerships. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18, 1: 10–21. https://doi.org/1093/oxrep/18.1.10 Crossref, Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available at https://www.r-project.org/. Google Scholar
Raesfeld, A. Von, Geurts, P., Jansen, M., Boshuizen, J. and Luttge, R. [2012] Influence of partner diversity on collaborative public R&D project outcomes: A study of application and commercialization of nanotechnologies in the Netherlands. Technovation, 32, 3–4: 227–233. https://doi.org/1016/j.technovation.2011.12.001 Crossref, Google Scholar
Rosenberg, N. and Nelson, R. R. [1994] American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23, 3: 323–348, https://doi.org/1016/0048-7333, 94:90042-6. Crossref, Google Scholar
Secundo, G., Elena Perez, S., Martinaitis, Ž. and Leitner, K. H. [2017] An Intellectual Capital framework to measure universities’ third mission activities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 229–239. https://doi.org/1016/j.techfore.2016.12.013 Crossref, Google Scholar
Shane, S. [2002] Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48, 1: 122–137. https://doi.org/1287/mnsc.48.1.122.14281 Crossref, Google Scholar
Shane, S. and Stuart, T. [2002] Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48, 1: 154–170. https://doi.org/1287/mnsc.48.1.154.14280 Crossref, Google Scholar
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E. and Link, A. N. [2004] Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management — JET-M, 21, 1–2: 115–142. https://doi.org/1016/j.jengtecman.2003.12.006 Crossref, Google Scholar
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. and Link, A. [2003] Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 1: 27–48, https://doi.org/1016/S0048-7333, 01:00196-2. Crossref, Google Scholar
Small, H. [1973] Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. American Society for Information Science Journal, 4, 265–269. Crossref, Google Scholar
Small, H. [1980] Co-citation context analysis and the structure of paradigms. Journal of Documentation, 36, 183–196. https://doi.org/1108/eb026695 Crossref, Google Scholar
Staab, S., Studer, R., Schnurr, H. P. and Sure, Y. [2001] Knowledge processes and ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, 16, 1: 26–34. https://doi.org/1109/5254.912382 Crossref, Google Scholar
Tether, B. S. and Tajar, A. [2008] Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37: 6–7, 1079–1095. https://doi.org/1016/j.respol.2008.04.003 Crossref, Google Scholar
Thursby, J. G. and Kemp, S. [2002] Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31, 1: 109–124, https://doi.org/1016/S0048-7333, 00:00160-8. Crossref, Google Scholar
Thursby, J. G. and Thursby, M. C. [2002] Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48, 1: 90–104. https://doi.org/1287/mnsc.48.1.90.14271 Crossref, Google Scholar
Torraco, R. J. [2005] Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 3: 356–367. https://doi.org/1177/1534484305278283 Crossref, Google Scholar
Van de Burgwal, L. H. M., Van der Waal, M. B. and Claassen, E. [2018] Accelerating microbiota product development: The societal impact value cycle as a conceptual model to shape and improve public-private valorization processes. PharmaNutrition, 6, 4: 157–168. https://doi.org/1016/j.phanu.2018.07.002 Crossref, Google Scholar
Van de Burgwal, L., Van der Waal, M. and Claassen, E. [2018] Leveraging academic knowledge in the innovation ecosystem. Available at https://repub.eur.nl/pub/104386/. Google Scholar
van der Heide, S., van der Sijde, P. and Terlouw, C. [2010] Exploring ‘transnational’ university cooperation in knowledge transfer: A European perspective. Industry and Higher Education, 24, 1: 17–27. https://doi.org/5367/000000010790877353 Crossref, Google Scholar
Van Eck, N. J. and Waltman, L. [2009] VOSviewer: A computer program for bibliometric mapping. In 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics. ISSI, pp. 886–897. Google Scholar
Veugelers, R. and Cassiman, B. [2005] R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23: 5–6, 355–379. https://doi.org/1016/j.ijindorg.2005.01.008 Crossref, Google Scholar
Von Zimmermann, M., Engel, S., Baccarella, C. and Voigt, K. I. [2012] Contract research as a part of new product development. In 2012 Proceedings of Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology: Technology Management for Emerging Technologies, PICMET’12. PIC, pp. 2524–2532. Available at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6304268/. Google Scholar
Wynn, M. G. [2018] Technology transfer projects in the UK: An analysis of university — Industry collaboration. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, 2: 52–72. https://doi.org/4018/IJKM.2018040104 Crossref, Google Scholar
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R. and Brewer, M. B. [1994] Intellectual Human Capital and the Birth of US Biotechnology Enterprises. National Bureau of Economic Research. Crossref, Google Scholar