Modelo de identificación de estrategias para potencializar la generación de patentes a la medida de la Institución de Educación Superior.

dc.contributorDesarrollo y Gerencia Integral de Proyectos
dc.creatorFigueroa Galvis, Neira Yolima
dc.creatorOlaya Escobar, Erika Sofía
dc.creatorCastro Silva, Hugo Fernando
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-06
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-01T17:40:09Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-29T14:36:56Z
dc.date.available2021-05-06
dc.date.available2021-10-01T17:40:09Z
dc.date.available2022-09-29T14:36:56Z
dc.date.created2021-05-06
dc.date.created2021-10-01T17:40:09Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier0718-2724
dc.identifierhttps://repositorio.escuelaing.edu.co/handle/001/1407
dc.identifier10.4067/S0718-27242020000200081
dc.identifierhttps://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242020000200081
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/3776088
dc.description.abstractLa transferencia de conocimiento y tecnología de las universidades contribuye al desarrollo regional y favorece la innovación. El objetivo de este trabajo es proponer un modelo para la selección de estrategias de transferencia adaptadas a las características contextuales de las Instituciones de Educación Superior de Colombia. Para ello, se realizó un Análisis Cualitativo Comparativo (QCA), mediante el cual se identifica la combinación de condiciones de fondo que generan una salida. La medida de desempeño fue el número de patentes de invención otorgadas y la aplicación empírica consideró 184 Instituciones de Educación Superior de Colombia.
dc.description.abstractThe transfer of knowledge and technology from universities contributes to regional development and favors innovation. The objective of this paper is to propose a model for the selection of transfer strategies adapted to the contextual characteristics of Higher Education Institutions of Colombia. For this purpose, a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was performed, by which the combination of background conditions that generate an output is identified. The performance measure was the number of invention patents granted and the empirical application considered 184 Higher Education Institutions of Colombia. The results of the study identified ten strategic configurations that suggest different alternatives to potentiate protection through transfer mechanisms and highlights “productivity” and “innovation by territorial unit” as the best predictor of patents.
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherRevista del Grupo de Innovación y Gestión Tecnológica
dc.publisherChile
dc.relationVol. 15 No. 2 (2020)
dc.relation94
dc.relation2
dc.relation81
dc.relation15
dc.relationN/A
dc.relationJournal of Technology Management and Innovation
dc.relationArenas, J., & González, D. (2018). Technology Transfer Models and Elements in the University-Industry Collaboration. Administrative Sciences, 8(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8020019
dc.relationBerbegal-Mirabent, J., & Guerrero, A. D. (2016). Examining technolo-gy transfer activities at universities : Does one recipe explain all outco-mes ? 137–144.
dc.relationJ. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2020. Volume 15, Issue 2ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios.91Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Guerrero, A. D. (2016). Examining technolo-gy transfer activities at universities : Does one recipe explain all outco-mes ? 137–144.
dc.relationBierly, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171111
dc.relationBolisani, E., & Bratianu, C. (2017). Knowledge strategy planning: an integrated approach to manage uncertainty, turbulence, and dyna-mics. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2016-0071
dc.relationBradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and Methods of University Technology Transfer. Foundations and Trends® in Entre-preneurship, 9(6), 571–650. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000048
dc.relationBrătianu, C. (2015). Developing Strategic Thinking in Business Edu-cation. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 3(3), 409–429. www.managementdynamics.ro
dc.relationBudyldina, N. (2018). Entrepreneurial universities and regional con-tribution. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0500-0
dc.relationCarree, M., Piergiovanni, R., Santarelli, E., & Verheul, I. (2015). Factors favoring innovation from a regional perspective: A comparison of pa-tents and trademarks. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 793–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0313-8
dc.relationChang, Y.-C., Chen, M.-H., Hua, M., & Yang, P. Y. (2006). Managing academic innovation in Taiwan: Towards a ‘scientific–economic’ fra-mework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2004.10.004
dc.relationChang, Y.-C., & Yang, P. Y. (2008). The impacts of academic patenting and licensing on knowledge production and diffChang, Y.-C., &
dc.relationYang, P. Y. (2008). The impacts of academic patenting and licensing on knowledge production and diffusion: a test of the anti-commons effect in Taiwan. R&D Man. R&D Management, 38(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00513.x-i1
dc.relationChang, Y.-C., Yang, P. Y., & Chen, M.-H. (2009). The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organi-zational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38(6), 936–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2009.03.005
dc.relationChang, Y.-C., Yang, P. Y., Martin, B. R., Chi, H.-R., & Tsai-Lin, T.-F. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities and research ambidexterity: A multilevel analysis. Technovation, 54, 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHNOVATION.2016.02.006
dc.relationChapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offi-ces: parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2005.01.007
dc.relationCornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO. (2017). The Global Innova-tion Index 2017 Innovation Feeding the World. In The Global Innova-tion Index 2017: Innovation Feeding the World.
dc.relationDi Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities ge-nerate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00097-5
dc.relationEisenhardt, K. M., & Santos, F. M. (2012). Knowledge-Based View: A New Theory of Strategy? In Handbook of Strategy and Management (pp. 139–164). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608313.n7
dc.relationEtzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Social Science Informa-tion, 42(3), 293–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184030423002
dc.relationEtzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of universi-ty–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
dc.relationEtzkowitz, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4
dc.relationFiss, P. C. (2011). Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
dc.relationFranco, M., & Haase, H. (2015). University-industry cooperation: Researchers’ motivations and interaction channels. Journal of Engi-neering and Technology Management - JET-M, 36, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.05.002
dc.relationFuquen, H. S., & Olaya-Escobar, E. S. (2018). A technology transfer strategy based on the dynamics of the generation of intellectual pro-perty in Latin-America. Intangible Capital, 14(2), 203–252. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.873
dc.relationHamdoun, M., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., & Ben Othman, H. (2018). Knowledge transfer and organizational innovation: Im-pacts of quality and environmental management. Journal of Clea-ner Production, 193, 759–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLE-PRO.2018.05.031
dc.relationHan, J. (2017). Technology commercialization through sustainable knowledge sharing from university-industry collaborations, with a focus on patent propensity. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101808
dc.relationHAN, J., & KIM, J. (2016). EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF TECHNO-LOGY TRANSFER IN KOREAN UNIVERSITIES. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(08), 1640018. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919616400181
dc.relationHogan, T. (2011). an Overview of the Knowledge Economy , With a Focus on. August, 1–35.
dc.relationJohnson, W. H. A. (2008). Roles, resources and benefits of interme-diate organizations supporting triple helix collaborative R&D: The case of Precarn. Technovation, 28(8), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHNOVATION.2008.02.007
dc.relationKashyap, A., & Agrawal, R. (2019). Scale development and modeling of intellectual property creation capability in higher education. Jour-nal of Intellectual Capital, 21(1), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-09-2018-0168
dc.relationKasten, J. (2007). Knowledge strategy and its influence on knowledge organization (Vol. 1). http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1907
dc.relationLandry, R., Amara, N., Cloutier, J. S., & Halilem, N. (2013). Technolo-gy transfer organizations: Services and business models. Technovation, 33(12), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.09.008
dc.relationLaredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the Third Mission of Universities: Toward a Renewed Categorization of University Activities? Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300169
dc.relationLinton, J. D. (2018). DNA of the Triple Helix: Introduction to the special issue. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHNOVA-TION.2018.07.002
dc.relationLockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2005.05.006
dc.relationLockett, A., Wright, M., & Wild, A. (2015). The Institutionalization of Third Stream Activities in UK Higher Education: The Role of Dis-course and Metrics. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12069
dc.relationLongest, K. C., & Vaisey, S. (2008). fuzzy: A program for performing qualitative comparative analyses (QCA) in Stata. Stata Journal, 8(1), 79–104. https://ideas.repec.org/a/tsj/stataj/v8y2008i1p79-104.html
dc.relationMarkman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Jour-nal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2003.12.003
dc.relationMintzberg, H. (1993). The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Har-vard Business Review
dc.relationO’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entre-preneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performan-ce of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011
dc.relationOlaya-Escobar, E. S., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Alegre, I. (2020). Te-chnological Forecasting & Social Change Exploring the relationship between service quality of technology transfer offices and researchers ’ patenting activity. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 157(No-vember 2018), 120097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120097
dc.relationOMPI. (2019). World Intellectual Property Indicators 2019.
dc.relationPhilpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entre-preneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHNO-VATION.2010.12.003
dc.relationPinheiro, R., Langa, P. V., & Pausits, A. (2015). The institutionaliza-tion of universities’ third mission: introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2015.1044551
dc.relationRagin, C. (2006). Guía del usuario de Fuzzy-Set / Qualitative Com-parative Analysis 2.0. Tucson, Arizona: Departamento de Sociología, Universidad de Arizona
dc.relationRagin, C., Drass, K. A., & Sean, D. (2006). Fuzzy-Set / Qualitative Comparative Analysis 2.0 . Tucson, Arizona: Departamento de Socio-logía, Universidad de Arizona.
dc.relationRagin, C., & Fiss, P. C. (2008). Net effects analysis versus configu-rational analysis: An empirical demonstration. In Redesigning Social Inquiry: Set Relations in Social Research. In press. Chicago, University of Chicago Press
dc.relationSchmid, J., & Fajebe, A. (2019). Variation in patent impact by orga-nization type: An investigation of government, university, and cor-porate patents. Science and Public Policy, 46(4), 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scz010
dc.relationSchneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of Good Practi-ce in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets. Com-parative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913210X12493538729793
dc.relationShattock, M., Unesco., & International Institute for Educational Plan-ning. (2009). Entrepreneurialism in universities and the knowledge economy : diversification and organizational change in European hig-her education. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press
dc.relationSiegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university te-chnology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2
dc.relationThe World Bank. (2018). How does the World Bank classify countries? – World Bank Data Help Desk. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/378834-how-does-the-world-bank-classify-countries
dc.relationThursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, Cha-racteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1/2), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007884111883
dc.relationThursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00160-8
dc.relationThursby, J. G., & 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/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.90.14271
dc.relationToscano, F. L. P., Mainardes, E. W., & Lasso, S. V. (2017). Exploring Challenges in University Technology Transfer in Brazil. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 14(04), 1750021. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877017500213
dc.relationVon Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Aben, M. (2001). Making the most of your company’s knowledge: A strategic framework. Long Range Plan-ning, 34(4), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00059-0
dc.relationWoodside, A. G. (2012). Proposing a new logic for data analysis in marketing and consumer behavior: case study research of large-N sur-vey data for estimating algorithms that accurately profile X (extremely high-use) consumers. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 22(4), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2012.717369
dc.relationWright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8), 1205–1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2008.04.021
dc.relationZack, M. H. (1999). Developing a Knowledge Strategy. In CALIFOR-NIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW (Vol. 41, Issue 3)
dc.relationCEPAL. (2016). Ciencia, tecnología e innovación en la economía di-gital. La situación de América Latina y el Caribe. Segunda Reunión de La Conferencia de Ciencia, Innovación y TIC de La CEPAL, 96. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
dc.relationCRES. (2018a). El Papel Estratégico De La Educación Superior En El Desarrollo Sostenible De América Latina Y El Caribe. http://www.cres2018.org/uploads/educacion-superior-desarrollo-sostenible.pdfCRES. (2018b). Tendencias de la educación superior en América La-tina y el Caribe 2018. http://www.cres2018.org/uploads/educacion-superior-tendencias-ecuador.pdf
dc.relationFernández Guerrero, R., Revuelto Taboada, L., & Simón Moya, V. (2018). Supervivencia de empresas sociales de nueva creación. Un en-foque basado en el análisis cualitativo comparativo fsQCA. CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa. https://doi.org/10.7203/CIRIEC-E.92.10735
dc.relationFigueroa-Galvis, N. Y., Olaya-Escobar, E.S., & Castro Silva, H. (2019a). Identificación y comparación de factores que inciden en la transferencia de tecnología - XVIII Congreso Latino Iberoamericano de Gestión Tecnológica ALTEC 2019 Medellín. Debates Sobre Innova-ción. http://economiaeinnovacionuamx.org/secciones/debatessobre-%0Ainnovacion
dc.relationFigueroa-Galvis, N. Y., Olaya-Escobar, E. S., & Castro Silva, H. (2019b). Diseño de un modelo para la selección de estrategias de trans-ferencia a la medida de las características contextuales de las Institucio-nes de Educación Superior: caso Colombia. Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia.
dc.relationGandini, L. (2014). El análisis comparativo cualitativo como estrategia metodológica. June.
dc.relationOlaya-Escobar, E. S., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Duarte, O. G. (2014). Desempeño de las oficinas de transferencia universitarias como in-termediarias para la potencialización del mercado de conocimien-to. Intangible Capital, 10(1), 155–188. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.497
dc.relationReuters. (2018). Reuters Top 100: las universidades más innovado-ras del mundo - 2018 - Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amers-reuters-ranking-innovative-univ/reuters-top-100-the-worlds-most-innovative-universities-2018-idUSKCN1ML0AZ#unis
dc.relationWIPO. (2020). Patentes académicas: cómo las universidades y las or-ganizaciones públicas de investigación están utilizando su propiedad intelectual para impulsar la investigación y estimular nuevas empresas innovadoras. https://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/academic_patenting.html
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC 4.0)
dc.sourcehttps://www.jotmi.org/index.php/GT/article/view/3369
dc.titleModelo de identificación de estrategias para potencializar la generación de patentes a la medida de la Institución de Educación Superior.
dc.typeArtículo de revista


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución