The development of University Technology Transfer stakeholder relationships at a regional level: Lessons for the future

By Rodney McAdam, Kristel Miller, Maura McAdam, S. Teague. 2012

145 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management of Technology and Innovation, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0b768aa1589252edc0b233e5a44ed4d4e454875b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Situated regional university incubation: A multi-level stakeholder perspective (2016, background): “However, as noted by McAdam et al. (2012) the emergence of local enterprise partnerships in other regions was aimed at encouraging university incubation models to become more selfsufficient.”
Technology transfer organizations: Services and business models (2013, background): “The KTTOs′ revenue streams come primarily in the form of government subsidies and the sale of services to firms (McAdam et al., 2012).”
Quadruple helix as a network of relationships: creating value within a Swedish regional innovation system (2019, methodology): “…helix from a micro perspective and, more specifically, the dynamic relationships, synergies, collaborations, coordinated environments, and value creation activities (Cunningham, Menter, and O’Kane 2018; Edquist 2011; H€oglund and Linton 2018; McAdam and Debackere 2018; McAdam et al. 2012).”
Entrepreneurial ecosystem governance: a principal investigator-centered governance framework (2019, background): “2014), thus strive for mutual beneficial outcomes that can enhance economic and non-economic value around disruptive knowledge (McAdam et al. 2012).”
Knowledge Transfer in University Quadruple Helix Ecosystems: An Absorptive Capacity Perspective (2016, unknown): “Consistent with prior research (Szulanski, 1996; Easteby-Smith et al., 2008; McAdam et al., 2012), this source of conflict was often the result of varying aims and objectives governing the transfer of knowledge.”