MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587778973

Towards Increased Understanding of Innovation Intermediaries

2015· dissertation· en· W2587778973 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Batouk

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntermediaryBusinessKnowledge managementComputer scienceMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada spends almost 2% of its GDP on publicly funded research (OECD, 2009). However, a high percentage of research results is never put to work for the benefit of society. Of the subset of research that becomes protected by a patent, too small a proportion is commercialized successfully (Etzkowitz et. al., 2000). For this reason, accelerating the successful transfer of knowledge and the commercialization of research results are among Canada’s priorities. Innovation Intermediaries play an essential role as the 'middle men' between solvers (the inventors) and seekers (the invention recipients) toward facilitating the commercialization of research results. This research aims to identify which types of Innovation Intermediaries (IIs) and their corresponding strategies enable the success of research commercialization. \nThis research is comprised of two stages: exploratory stage and confirmatory stage. The former investigated certain lenses to differentiate between IIs types, while the latter tested the validity and reliability of the suggested model and concurrently validated the scale items. Furthermore, various statistical analysis tools were used to analyze and assess the hypotheses as well as to reveal the statistical properties of the scales. \nFrooman’s (1999) Stakeholder Influence Strategy Theory (SIST) is a framework designed to address how stakeholders use the power of resource dependency to influence a focal organization. This study is among the first research studies to operationalize the constructs of Frooman’s (1999) model in the context of innovation intermediaries who facilitate the research commercialization. These constructs are used to assess the influence that an innovation intermediary receives from its stakeholder(s). Furthermore, this study associates ‘stakeholder identification and salience theory’ (Mitchell et al., 1997) with Frooman’s ‘SIST’, and then makes an extension to the model. This adjustment implies that only salient stakeholders are to be considered in the model, and that the model accounts for one-to-many relationship between an organization and many stakeholders. The extended model represents the first part of the research framework for this study, while the second part considers the impacts of stakeholders' influence on IIs' operational strategies. Data were collected from a North American (Canada and USA) sample to test two sets of hypotheses for the purpose of examining the two parts of the model; in other words, the hypotheses were tested to investigate how various II types are influenced by their stakeholders and how that influence impacts the IIs' operational strategies. \nThis study found that the current commercialization efforts of IIs are rarely supported by rigorous evidence-based practice; further, the comparative performance metrics that are used by various IIs are mainly to justify ongoing support. In addition, this study suggests that all types of II could be located on a continuum anchored a 'uni-stakeholder approach' on one end, to 'multi-stakeholders approach' on the other; each of those who hold a uni-stakeholder perspective (USP) perceives one particular stakeholder as most salient to them, upon which they most depends, and by which they are most influenced; IIs with USP have distinguishing characteristics in terms of their main operational strategy (objectives for commercialization, paths used for commercialize, clients who are served, estimates of innovation readiness); thus, they are focused on competencies of their current practices and subsequently are recommended to advance toward a complementary mode in order to create a more comprehensive commercialization ecosystem. On the other hand, one II type was found to hold a multi-stakeholder perspective (MSP); typically, it has no dominate dependency or influence by a particular stakeholder. MSP type shows a broad operational strategy that may allow a comprehensive commercialization ecosystem; furthermore, MSP signifies a high priorities for 'potential societal and environmental benefits from the idea’ and ‘potential contribution to local society and environment’ as criteria for invention selection; accordingly, MSP my represent the most functional approach in the long run. \nThe study contributes to the literature of II by adding to our understanding as to why there should be more than one type of II to facilitate research commercialization. Moreover, it contributes a new typology for II types and provides a scientific framework to compare and contrast various II types based on evidence. Accordingly, this work stimulates the literature of best practices in the context of IIs. Furthermore, the study validated that the influence by a salient stakeholder(s) -- to a great extent -- explains what IIs do; both the level of the dependency by II on stakeholders and II’s perception of its stakeholder's salience level predict the level of stakeholder influence on the II. That in turn facilitates the identifying of the type of influence that each stakeholder may apply on an associated II. In addition, this research provides very essential knowledge for practitioners and managers as well as to stakeholders and clients about the various types and operational strategies for each innovation intermediary type; thus, they are encouraged to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of various II types who follow a uni-stakeholders approach and the one II type who follow a multi-stakeholders approach over the short and long run. Finally, the study reports some limitations and suggests some possible topics for future research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.025
Scholarly communication0.0230.050
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation ModelsFrench-language works237,207