Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Modelo de Identificación de Estrategias para Potencializar la Generación de Patentes a la Medida de la Institución de Educación Superior

dc.contributor.authorFigueroa Galvis, Neira Yolima
dc.contributor.authorOlaya Escobar, Erika Sofía
dc.contributor.authorCastro Silva, Hugo Fernando
dc.coverage.spatialColombiaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-08T21:49:46Z
dc.date.available2025-10-08T21:49:46Z
dc.date.issued2020-08-01
dc.identifier.issn0718-2724en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioinstitucional.ufpso.edu.co/xmlui/handle/20.500.14167/5695
dc.description.abstractLa transferencia de conocimiento y tecnología desde las universidades aporta al desarrollo regional y favorece la innovación. El objetivo de este trabajo es proponer un modelo para la selección de estrategias de transferencia a la medida de las características contextuales de las Instituciones de Educación Superior de Colombia. Con este propósito se realizó un análisis comparativo cualitativo (QCA), mediante el cual se identificó la combinación de condiciones antecedentes que generan un output. La medida de rendimiento fue el número de patentes de invención concedidas y la aplicación empírica consideró 184 Instituciones de Educación Superior de Colombia. Los resultados del estudio identificaron diez configuraciones estratégicas que sugieren diferentes alternativas para potencializar la protección mediante mecanismos de transferencia y destaca “la productividad” y “la innovación por unidad territorial” como mejor predictor de patentes.en_US
dc.language.isospaen_US
dc.relationhttps://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0718-27242020000200081&script=sci_arttext&tlng=pten_US
dc.titleModelo de Identificación de Estrategias para Potencializar la Generación de Patentes a la Medida de la Institución de Educación Superioren_US
dc.title.translatedModel of Identification of Strategies to Potentiate the Generation of Patents Tailored to the Institution of Higher Educationen_US
dc.contributor.cvlacNeira Yolima Figueroa Galvis [0001646936]en_US
dc.contributor.cvlacErika Sofía Olaya Escobar [0000344435]en_US
dc.contributor.cvlacHugo Fernando Castro Silva [0001388686]en_US
dc.contributor.googlescholarNeira Yolima Figueroa Galvis [umIDtk8AAAAJ]en_US
dc.contributor.googlescholarErika Sofía Olaya Escobar [G36xL9wAAAAJ]en_US
dc.contributor.googlescholarHugo Fernando Castro Silva [vxtjgAoAAAAJ]en_US
dc.contributor.orcidNeira Yolima Figueroa Galvis [0000-0002-5200-9029]en_US
dc.contributor.orcidErika Sofía Olaya Escobar [0000-0001-6254-1169]en_US
dc.contributor.orcidHugo Fernando Castro Silva [0000-0001-6020-402X]en_US
dc.contributor.researchgateHugo Fernando Castro Silva [Hugo-Castro-Silva]en_US
dc.contributor.scopusErika Sofía Olaya Escobar [57201653595]en_US
dc.contributor.scopusHugo Fernando Castro Silva [57205121211]en_US
dc.description.abstractenglishThe 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.en_US
dc.subject.proposaltransferencia de conocimiento y tecnologíaen_US
dc.subject.proposalInstituciones de Educación Superioren_US
dc.subject.proposalanálisis comparativo cualitativoen_US
dc.subject.proposalpatentesen_US
dc.subject.keywordsknowledge and technology transferen_US
dc.subject.keywordsHigher Education Institutionsen_US
dc.subject.keywordsqualitative comparative analysisen_US
dc.subject.keywordspatentsen_US
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad ingenieríasen_US
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTen_US
dc.relation.referencesArenas, J., & González, D. (2018). Technology Transfer Models and Elements in the University-Industry Collaboration. Administrative Sciences, 8(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8020019en_US
dc.relation.referencesBerbegal-Mirabent, J., & Guerrero, A. D. (2016). Examining technology transfer activities at universities : Does one recipe explain all outcomes ? 137–144.en_US
dc.relation.referencesBerbegal‐Mirabent, J., & Solé-Parellada, F. (2011). Caracterización del proceso de valorización de la I + D universitaria. 5th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Industrial Management, 558–567.en_US
dc.relation.referencesBierly, 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.4250171111en_US
dc.relation.referencesBolisani, E., & Bratianu, C. (2017). Knowledge strategy planning: an integrated approach to manage uncertainty, turbulence, and dynamics. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 233–253. https://doi. org/10.1108/JKM-02-2016-0071en_US
dc.relation.referencesBradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and Methods of University Technology Transfer. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571–650. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000048en_US
dc.relation.referencesBrătianu, C. (2015). Developing Strategic Thinking in Business Education. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 3(3), 409– 429. www.managementdynamics.roen_US
dc.relation.referencesBudyldina, N. (2018). Entrepreneurial universities and regional contribution. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0500-0en_US
dc.relation.referencesCarree, M., Piergiovanni, R., Santarelli, E., & Verheul, I. (2015). Factors favoring innovation from a regional perspective: A comparison of patents and trademarks. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 793–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0313-8en_US
dc.relation.referencesCEPAL. (2016). Ciencia, tecnología e innovación en la economía digital. 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/CBO9781107415324.004en_US
dc.relation.referencesChang, Y.-C., Chen, M.-H., Hua, M., & Yang, P. Y. (2006). Managing academic innovation in Taiwan: Towards a ‘scientific–economic’ framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2004.10.004en_US
dc.relation.referencesChang, Y.-C., & Yang, P. Y. (2008). The impacts of academic patenting and licensing on knowledge production and diffChang, Y.-C., &en_US
dc.relation.referencesYang, 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-i1en_US
dc.relation.referencesChang, Y.-C., Yang, P. Y., & Chen, M.-H. (2009). The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38(6), 936–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2009.03.005en_US
dc.relation.referencesChang, 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.2016.02.006en_US
dc.relation.referencesChapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2005.01.007en_US
dc.relation.referencesCornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO. (2017). The Global Innovation Index 2017 Innovation Feeding the World. In The Global Innovation Index 2017: Innovation Feeding the World.en_US
dc.relation.referencesCRES. (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.pdf CRES. (2018b). Tendencias de la educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe 2018. http://www.cres2018.org/uploads/educacionsuperior-tendencias-ecuador.pdfen_US
dc.relation.referencesDi Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00097-5en_US
dc.relation.referencesEisenhardt, 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.n7en_US
dc.relation.referencesEtzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184030423002en_US
dc.relation.referencesEtzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4en_US
dc.relation.referencesEtzkowitz, 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)00069-4en_US
dc.relation.referencesFernández Guerrero, R., Revuelto Taboada, L., & Simón Moya, V. (2018). Supervivencia de empresas sociales de nueva creación. Un enfoque basado en el análisis cualitativo comparativo fsQCA. CIRIECEspaña, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa. https:// doi.org/10.7203/CIRIEC-E.92.10735en_US
dc.relation.referencesFigueroa-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 Innovación. http://economiaeinnovacionuamx.org/secciones/debatessobre- %0Ainnovacionen_US
dc.relation.referencesFigueroa-Galvis, N. Y., Olaya-Escobar, E. S., & Castro Silva, H. (2019b). Diseño de un modelo para la selección de estrategias de transferencia a la medida de las características contextuales de las Instituciones de Educación Superior: caso Colombia. Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia.en_US
dc.relation.referencesFiss, 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.2011.60263120en_US
dc.relation.referencesFranco, M., & Haase, H. (2015). University-industry cooperation: Researchers’ motivations and interaction channels. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, 36, 41–51. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.05.002en_US
dc.relation.referencesFuquen, H. S., & Olaya-Escobar, E. S. (2018). A technology transfer strategy based on the dynamics of the generation of intellectual property in Latin-America. Intangible Capital, 14(2), 203–252. https:// doi.org/10.3926/ic.873en_US
dc.relation.referencesGandini, L. (2014). El análisis comparativo cualitativo como estrategia metodológica. June.en_US
dc.relation.referencesHamdoun, M., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., & Ben Othman, H. (2018). Knowledge transfer and organizational innovation: Impacts of quality and environmental management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 193, 759–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.05.031en_US
dc.relation.referencesHan, 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/su9101808en_US
dc.relation.referencesHAN, J., & KIM, J. (2016). EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IN KOREAN UNIVERSITIES. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(08), 1640018. https://doi. org/10.1142/S1363919616400181en_US
dc.relation.referencesHogan, T. (2011). an Overview of the Knowledge Economy , With a Focus on. August, 1–35en_US
dc.relation.referencesJohnson, W. H. A. (2008). Roles, resources and benefits of intermediate organizations supporting triple helix collaborative R&D: The case of Precarn. Technovation, 28(8), 495–505. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.TECHNOVATION.2008.02.007en_US
dc.relation.referencesKashyap, A., & Agrawal, R. (2019). Scale development and modeling of intellectual property creation capability in higher education. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(1), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JIC-09-2018-0168en_US
dc.relation.referencesKasten, J. (2007). Knowledge strategy and its influence on knowledge organization (Vol. 1). http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1907en_US
dc.relation.referencesLandry, R., Amara, N., Cloutier, J. S., & Halilem, N. (2013). Technology transfer organizations: Services and business models. Technovation, 33(12), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.09.008en_US
dc.relation.referencesLaredo, 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.8300169en_US
dc.relation.referencesLinton, J. D. (2018). DNA of the Triple Helix: Introduction to the special issue. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHNOVATION.2018.07.002en_US
dc.relation.referencesLockett, 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.2005.05.006en_US
dc.relation.referencesLockett, A., Wright, M., & Wild, A. (2015). The Institutionalization of Third Stream Activities in UK Higher Education: The Role of Discourse and Metrics. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12069en_US
dc.relation.referencesLongest, 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.htmlen_US
dc.relation.referencesMarkman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. JBUSVENT.2003.12.003en_US
dc.relation.referencesMintzberg, H. (1993). The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Reviewen_US
dc.relation.referencesO’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011en_US
dc.relation.referencesOlaya-Escobar, E. S., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Alegre, I. (2020). Technological Forecasting & Social Change Exploring the relationship between service quality of technology transfer offices and researchers ’ patenting activity. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 157(November 2018), 120097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120097en_US
dc.relation.referencesOlaya-Escobar, E. S., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Duarte, O. G. (2014). Desempeño de las oficinas de transferencia universitarias como intermediarias para la potencialización del mercado de conocimiento. Intangible Capital, 10(1), 155–188. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi. org/10.3926/ic.497en_US
dc.relation.referencesOMPI. (2019). World Intellectual Property Indicators 2019.en_US
dc.relation.referencesPhilpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHNOVATION.2010.12.003en_US
dc.relation.referencesPinheiro, R., Langa, P. V., & Pausits, A. (2015). The institutionalization of universities’ third mission: introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 227–232. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044551en_US
dc.relation.referencesRagin, C. (2006). Guía del usuario de Fuzzy-Set / Qualitative Comparative Analysis 2.0. Tucson, Arizona: Departamento de Sociología, Universidad de Arizonaen_US
dc.relation.referencesRagin, C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry : fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.en_US
dc.relation.referencesRagin, C., Drass, K. A., & Sean, D. (2006). Fuzzy-Set / Qualitative Comparative Analysis 2.0 . Tucson, Arizona: Departamento de Sociología, Universidad de Arizonaen_US
dc.relation.referencesRagin, C., & Fiss, P. C. (2008). Net effects analysis versus configurational analysis: An empirical demonstration. In Redesigning Social Inquiry: Set Relations in Social Research. In press. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.en_US
dc.relation.referencesReuters. (2018). Reuters Top 100: las universidades más innovadoras del mundo - 2018 - Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/usamers-reuters-ranking-innovative-univ/reuters-top-100-the-worldsmost-innovative-universities-2018-idUSKCN1ML0AZ#unisen_US
dc.relation.referencesSchmid, J., & Fajebe, A. (2019). Variation in patent impact by organization type: An investigation of government, university, and corporate patents. Science and Public Policy, 46(4), 589–598. https://doi. org/10.1093/scipol/scz010en_US
dc.relation.referencesSchneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691321 0X12493538729793en_US
dc.relation.referencesShattock, M., Unesco., & International Institute for Educational Planning. (2009). Entrepreneurialism in universities and the knowledge economy : diversification and organizational change in European higher education. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.en_US
dc.relation.referencesSiegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2en_US
dc.relation.referencesThe 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-classifycountriesen_US
dc.relation.referencesThursby, 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, 26(1/2), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007884111883en_US
dc.relation.referencesThursby, 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)00160-8en_US
dc.relation.referencesThursby, 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.48.1.90.14271en_US
dc.relation.referencesToscano, 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/S0219877017500213en_US
dc.relation.referencesVon Krogh, G., Nonaka, I., & Aben, M. (2001). Making the most of your company’s knowledge: A strategic framework. Long Range Planning, 34(4), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00059-0en_US
dc.relation.referencesWIPO. (2020). Patentes académicas: cómo las universidades y las organizaciones 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.htmlen_US
dc.relation.referencesWoodside, A. G. (2012). Proposing a new logic for data analysis in marketing and consumer behavior: case study research of large-N survey 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/10.1080/21639159.2012.717369en_US
dc.relation.referencesWright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Midrange universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8), 1205–1223. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2008.04.021en_US
dc.relation.referencesZack, M. H. (1999). Developing a Knowledge Strategy. In CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW (Vol. 41, Issue 3).en_US
dc.identifier.DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242020000200081en_US


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre:
Modelo de Identificación de ...
Tamaño:
379.5Kb
Formato:
PDF
Ver/

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem