Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 32 Download : 18

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Abstract. Commercialization of research products is a common problem in the product development stage of research institutions where many research products are not utilized to become commercial value. This study aims to analyze the opportunity evaluation by business actors in utilizing technology products from research institutions, especially the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN). Conjoint analysis design was carried out to see respondents' assessments of a series of profiles containing theory-based variable manipulations and their influence on decision making according to opportunity evaluation theory. The questionnaire was filled out by 101 individuals who have decision-making authority in the company and analyzed using the Mixed-effect model regression technique. Opportunity attributes (prototype maturity, segment clarity and regulatory hurdless) have a significant effect on the opportunity evaluation to license BRIN’s research products. We document the moderating role of individual attributes and environmental dynamism attributes on the influence of opportunity attributes on the opportunity evaluation to license BRIN’s research products. This study uses a different approach in analyzing the factors of industry licensing decisions for research products from research institutions by applying opportunity evaluation. This study offers insights for research institutions in utilizing research products for business actors through licensing schemes.


Keywords: Commercialization, opportunity evaluation, conjoint analysis, organizational behavior, licensing

Keywords

commercialization opportunity evaluation conjoint analysis organizational behavior licensing

Article Details

License
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Copyright @2017. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial used, distribution and reproduction in any medium 

How to Cite
Supomo, A. D. P., & Balqiah, T. E. (2025). Optimization of BRIN’s Technology License: Conjoint Experimental Study. The Asian Journal of Technology Management (AJTM), 18(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.12695/ajtm.2025.18.2.5
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Aghaey, A. (2020). Differences in opportunity evaluation between corporate and independent entrepreneurs.
  2. Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.508
  3. Bennett, B. E. N. (2002). Market scoping: methods to help people understand their marketing environment (Issue October, pp. 71–77).
  4. Brown, A. R., Wood, M. S., & Scheaf, D. J. (2022). Discovery sells, but who’s buying? An empirical investigation of entrepreneurs’ technology license decisions. Journal of Business Research, 144(March 2021), 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.021
  5. Canalichio, P. (2018). Making the Decision to License. Expand, Grow, Thrive, 173–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78743-781-420181010
  6. Cattin, P., & Wittink, D. R. (1982). Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 44. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251701
  7. Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., Garcia-Perez, A., & Moreno-Cegarra, J. L. (2014). Technology knowledge and governance: Empowering citizen engagement and participation. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.001
  8. Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business Research Methods. McGraw-Hill Education. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=fIy6DAEACAAJ
  9. Daniel, A. D., & Alves, L. (2020). University-industry technology transfer: the commercialization of university’s patents. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 18(3), 276–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1638741
  10. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10), 1105–1121.
  11. Gottinger, H. (2014). Dynamics of Innovation , Competition and Market Dynamics In Network Industries.
  12. Gottinger, H. W. (2016). Innovation, Dynamics of Competition and Market Dynamics`. Archives of Business Research, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.41.1737
  13. Gu, J. (2021). Effects of patent policy on outputs and commercialization of academic patents in china: A spatial difference-in-differences analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313459
  14. Ismail, N., Nor, M. J. M., & Sidek, S. (2015). A Framework for a Successful Research Products Commercialisation: A Case of Malaysian Academic Researchers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.163
  15. Kirchberger, M. A., & 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/10.1007/s10961-016-9486-3
  16. Kreiling, L., & Bounfour, A. (2020). A practice-based maturity model for holistic TTO performance management: development and initial use. Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(6), 1718–1747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09756-7
  17. Lee, R., & Lee, Y. il. (2019). The role of nation brand in attracting foreign direct investments: a case study of Korea. International Marketing Review, 38(1), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-01-2019-0024
  18. Malhotra, N. K., & Dash, S. (2016). Marketing Research; An Applied Orientation (Seventh Ed). Pearson India Education Services Pvt. Ltd.
  19. Mcmullen, J. S., Wood, M. S., & Kier, A. S. (2016). An Embedded Agency Approach To Entrepreneurship Public Policy: Managerial Position And Politics In New Venture Location Decisions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 222–246. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381503.n11
  20. Nasirov, S., Li, Q. C., & Kor, Y. Y. (2021). Converting technological inventions into new products: The role of CEO human capital. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(5), 522–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12601
  21. Nielsen, B. B., & Nielsen, S. (2013). Top management team nationality diversity and firm performance: A multilevel study. Strategic Management Journal, 34(3), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2021
  22. Oehler, L. (2021). Technological Change and the Decomposition of Innovation Choices and Consequences for Latecomer Firm Upgrading. Copenhagen Business School.
  23. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Free Press. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=9U1K5LjUOwEC
  24. Sandström, C., Wennberg, K., Wallin, M. W., & Zherlygina, Y. (2018). Public policy for academic entrepreneurship initiatives: a review and critical discussion. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(5), 1232–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9536-x
  25. Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Baron, R. A. (2013). “ I CARE ABOUT NATURE , BUT . . .”: DISENGAGING VALUES IN ASSESSING OPPORTUNITIES THAT CAUSE HARM Author ( s ): DEAN A . SHEPHERD , HOLGER PATZELT and ROBERT A . BARON Source : The Academy of Management Journal , Vol . 56 , No . 5 ( October 2013 ), pp . 1. 56(5), 1251–1273.
  26. Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M. M., & Busenitz, L. (2012). Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.07.001
  27. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1023/A
  28. Usman, B., Sheikh, S. M., Yousaf, S. U., & Akram, M. W. (2021). Impact of Industrial Munificence , Industry Dynamism and Asset Structureon the Firm Leverage. Elementary Education Online, 20(4), 188–198. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2021.04.21
  29. van Holm, E. J., Jung, H., & Welch, E. W. (2021). The impacts of foreignness and cultural distance on commercialization of patents. In Journal of Technology Transfer (Vol. 46, Issue 1). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09775-9
  30. Wild, John J; Wild, K. L. (2020). International Business: The Challenges of Globalization, eBook, Global Edition (Ninth Edit). Pearson Education Limited. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9781292262314/pageid/4
  31. Wood, M. S., Bylund, P., & Bradley, S. (2016). The influence of tax and regulatory policies on entrepreneurs’ opportunity evaluation decisions. Management Decision, 54(5), 1160–1182. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2015-0446
  32. Wright, M., Birley, S., & Mosey, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship and University Technology Transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 235 246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2012.05.050
  33. Yu, H. W. H. (2016). Bridging the translational gap: Collaborative drug development and dispelling the stigma of commercialization. Drug Discovery Today, 21(2), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2015.10.013