Total views : 293

MeetInventorTM: An Academic Innovation and Science Research towards Commercialization

Affiliations

  • Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, 76100, Durian Tunggal, Melaka, Malaysia

Abstract


This paper describes a framework, named MeetInventorTM, which aims to promote academic research towards commercializing academic research products. MeetInventorTM enables this process by encouraging researchers to expose their research works and capabilities, request funding, and then use that funding to bring their product closer to the market place. The need for promoting academic research products is essential so that the research work does not end in the academic arena. These potential research innovations need to be exposed to the world to increase the chances of getting funding from interested agencies and companies. While traditional funding sources for academic research are only made available through allocated funds by academic or governmental institutions, this often slows down the process of getting promising innovations into the market. Thus, in this paper, the proposed framework is intended to bridge the gap between ideas and reality in academic research. There are four main phases in the framework, i.e., repository, educating, facilitating and marketing. The use of these phases for elevating academic innovation products could improve the likelihood of commercial success.

Keywords

Academic Research, Commercialization, Innovation.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 235)

References


  • Butera F. Adapting the pattern of university organisation to the needs of the knowledge economy. European Journal of Education. 2000 Dec, 35(4):403–19.
  • Lowe R. The role and experience of inventors and start-ups in commercializing university research: Case studies at the university of California, Center for Studies in Higher Education; 2002 Dec. p. 1–34.
  • Dvir D, Raz T, Shenhar AJ. An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. International Journal of Project Management. 2003 Feb; 21(2):89–95.
  • Binneman B, Steyn H. Criteria for selection and gate reviews of technology innovation projects. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering. 2014 May; 25(1):117–30.
  • Rasmussen E. Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation. 2008 Aug; 28(8):50–17.
  • Jano Z, Janor H, Nor MJM, Ahmad R, Shaaban A. A qualitative content analysis of e-strategies for research, innovation and commercialization: A case of global bodies, Malaysian Ministries and Research University. Government e-Strategic Planning and Management. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 305–21.
  • Litan RE, Reedy EJ, Mitchell L. Commercializing university innovations: A better way. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies; 2007 May. p. 1–35.
  • Rae T, Eden C. On project success and failure in major engineering projects. Strathclyde Graduate Business School; 2000.
  • Wang J, Lin W, Huang YH. A performance-oriented risk management framework for innovative R&D projects. Technovation. 2010 Nov-Dec; 30(11-12):601–11.
  • Ismail N, Sidek S, Nor M, Jailani M. Market-driven research approach for a successful research product commercialisation. International Symposium on Research in Innovation and Sustainability; 2014 Oct. p. 1595–9.
  • Sidek S, Ismail N, Mohd Nor MJ. Determinants for a successful commercialisation of technology innovation from Malaysian universities. International Conference on Innovative Trends in Multidisciplinary Academic Research, ITMAR; 2014. p. 169–75.
  • Nicholas JM, Steyn H. Project management for engineering business and technology. 4th ed. London: Routledge; 2012.
  • Ahn MJ, Zwikael O, Bednarek R. Technological innovation to product innovation: A project management approach. International Journal of Project Management. 2010 Aug; 28(6):559–68.
  • Munns AK, Bjeirmi BF. The role of project management in achieving project success. International Journal of Project Management. 1996 Apr; 14(2):81–7.
  • Jung U, Seo DW. An ANP approach for R&D project evaluation based on interdependencies between research objectives and evaluation criteria. Decision Support Systems. 2010 Jun; 49(3):335–42.
  • Danneels E, Kleinschmidtb EJ. Product innovativeness from the firm's perspective: Its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2001 Nov; 18(6):357–73.
  • Markman GD, Phan PH, Balkin DB, Gianiodis PT. Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing. 2005 Mar; 20(2):241–63.
  • Svensson R. Commercialization of patents and external financing during the R&D phase. Research Policy. 2007 Mar; 36(7):1–36.
  • Siegel DS, Waldman DA, Atwater LE, Link AN. 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. 2004 Mar-Jun; 21(1-2):115–42.
  • Siegel DS, Veugelers R, Wright M. Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 2007; 23(4):640–60.
  • Ryan D. Understanding digital marketing: Marketing strategies for engaging the digital generation. 3rd ed. Kogan Page Publishers; 2014. p. 432.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.