Measuring the knowledge transfer process: insights from and Italian case study

In the context of “knowledge-based society” (Sanchez-Barriduengo, 2014; Molas-Gallart and Castro Martinez, 2007; ), managing and diffusing knowledge created within the academic community and measuring its impact is... [ view full abstract ]

In the context of “knowledge-based society” (Sanchez-Barriduengo, 2014; Molas-Gallart and Castro Martinez, 2007; ), managing and diffusing knowledge created within the academic community and measuring its impact is becoming a key mission for universities and Public Research Institutes (PRIs). As knowledge producers, these institutions are in charge of diffusing knowledge they produce to favor industrial innovation, to produce social benefits and to finally improve the local and national economic development (Frishammar et al., 2015; Hakimi et al., 2014; Shore and McLauchlan, 2012; Göransson et al., 2009; Lin et al., 2009; O’Shea et al., 2005; Feller et al., 2002).
As the relevance of measuring research impact grows, there is the need to define a Performance Measurement System and tailored indicators to measure the impact of research and knowledge generated within the academic community. Starting from and in depth case study of an Italian PRI, the aim of the present research is the definition of a Performance Measurement System to monitor and to evaluate the impact of research generated in PRI. In chasing this research objective, we want to answer to two research questions: which performance dimension must be define to measure the impact of research? Which performance indicators can be define to measure the impact of research results outside the academic community?
Our findings provide insights on the peculiarity of the knowledge management process between PRI and the external environment, that requires the definition of specific performance indicators for the evaluation of the knowledge transfer process. Specifically, we found that traditional indicators related to technology transfer (e.g. n. of patents) are not able, alone, to measure the whole knowledge transfer process. Therefore, we have to define tailored indicators that are able to provide a comprehensive picture of knowledge management and transfer process.




References
Feller, I., Ailes, C.P., and Roessner, J.D., (2002), “Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industries: evidence from engineering research centers”, Research Policy, 31: 457-474
Frishammar, J., Ericsson, K and Patel, P.C., (2015), “The dark side of knowledge transfer: exploring knowledge leakage in joint R&D projects”, Technovation, 41-42:75-88.
Göransson, B., Maharajh, R. and Scmach, U., (2009), “New activities of universities in transfer and extension: multiple requirements and manifold solutions”, Science and Public Policy, 36(2):157-164.
Hakimi, W.B., Trikia, A. and Hmmami, S., (2014), “Developing a customer knowledge-based measure for innovation management”, European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(3): 272-291.
Lin, J.L., Fang, S.C., Fang, S.R. and Tsai, F.S., (2009), “Network ebbeddedness and technology transfer performance in R&D consortia in Taiwan”, Technovation, 29: 763-774.
Molas-Gallart, J. and Castro Martinez, E., (2007), “Ambiguity and conflict in the development of ‘Third Mission’ indicators”, Research Evaluation, 16(4): 321-330.
O’Shea, R.P., Alle, T.J., Chevalier, A. and Roche, F., (2005), “Entreprenurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities”, Research Policy, 34:994-1009.
Sanchez-Barrioluengo, M., (2014), “Articulating the ‘Third-Mission’ in Spanish universities”, Research Policy, 43:1760-1773.
Shore, C. and McLauchlan, L., (2012), “Third mission activities, commercialization and academic entrepreneurs”, Social Antropology, DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8676.2012.00207.x.