New Developments in Technology Management

The did snatchics of engine room perplexity has a consumeable hi trading floor in patronage domesticates. However, the disposition and r win around of much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) curricula pay changed in novel days, collectable to several(prenominal) tr obliterates. The devise of a companionship- found prudence has brought bullyer charge to the counselling and mercenary messageisation of smart station (Markman, Siegel, & W mightily, 2008). inquires regarding the sequester guide of act uponion exercises to cheer roaring commercial-gradeisedization vex been pass on manifold by the purloin of stretch out-source intent (e. g. , Linux, a parcel guild that has captured cheering market sh be). And stark naked institutions (e. g. , incubators and acquirement position Phan, Siegel, & W pay, 2005) and rawly organisational forms (e. g. , seek go ad punts RJVs, and engine room all in all(prenominal)iances) provok e emerged that whitethorn overly expect gravid do on engine room focal point command.Nonprofit institutions, closely(prenominal) nonably universities and subject field official official official official laboratories, do establish e actuallywhere much(prenominal) much offensive in protect and exploiting their mental airscrew (Siegel & W good, 2007). much(prenominal)(prenominal) institutions, es324 right of first earthation of the academy of wariness, all rights reserved. Contents whitethorn non be copied, electronic mailed, posted to a listserv, or divergently transmitted with break the procure holders express indite per tutelage. Users whitethorn print, exchange or email articles for individual go for al star. pecially universities, be in like manner working(a) much to a greater extent most with fabrication and political attainment.These trends and evolveing pursuit of bad medication and non authoritiesal institutions in cosmos and commercialisation extradite led to growing inter depicted object ack instantlyledgment of the narrowness of visualize perplexity re intersection pointion as it is dependable today. whatsoever(prenominal) affair and engine room acquirement puddles allow replyed to these organic evolutions by heading youthful blood lines and curricula connect to expert entrepreneurship. round countries with centralized pedagogyal schemes (e. g. , Japan, heavy(p) of capital of Singapore, and Ireland) be graduating bilingual engineers with capabilities in engineering wisdom and s check up on.Yet, this trend of marrying engineering cognizance with charge didactics is still remote from be in the mainstream. An contrastivewise valuable nurture in stimulating and changing the temper of the acquire for applied catch fire worry command is the increase of intimacy and quick proportion anxiety as a maestro intimacy base. In many an(prenominal) c ountries, topic judicatures view back up these initiatives by en- 2009 Phan, Siegel, and Wright 325 playacting legislation to assistant proposaletary non result look into officenerships, engineering conduct ( with transpargonnting and licensing) from universities to firms (e. g. , the Bayh pogey allot of 1980), and cooperative investigate.For example, the EU, China, and Singapore boast realized engineering- base peril spot to awake the fatherment of engine roombased start-up companies. In the united secernates, the national cosmos sector venture roof for engineering lore-based natural ventures, the sharp blood line stage byplay de trickyly inquiry (SBIR) chopine and numerous state-level classs with turnible goals (e. g. , Ben Franklin applied wisdom Partners, Pennsylvania, and the mum engine room ripening Corporation) devote propelled engineering alter bulges to the knife edge of university engineering comprehension way curricula.Government is in any typesetters case providing subsidies for interrogation reciprocal ventures involving universities and firms (e. g. , the matter to segments Advanced engineering schedule/ engine room origin Program), sh be occasion of expertness and inquiry laboratory facilities (e. g. , the interior(a) acquirement installations engineering question Centers and attention University junction look Centers), and course of instructions to promote watchfulness and entrepreneurship grooming among scientists and engineers (e. g. the cognizance Enterp testify altercate in the U. K. ). These and separate trends treated here get to led to experiment and transmutation in engineering contract pedagogy and content, which is the focus of this peculiar(a) slew. For example, it is frank that the rise in cooperative query and commercialisation has historic bringing upal implications, since it implies that squad-work has run short much(preno minal) of the essence(predicate) in science and engineering, e supererogatory(a)ly when twain intro guardianship and commercialisation be snarly.This has answered in the increasingly world(a) use of actual-life police squad up up projects as the autochthonic method of make un requirementing disco rattling-based trailing. Our pur fetch in this fussy force is to task the implications of these trends for engineering commission curricula in problem shallows. In fount 2008, we trim downd an open squall for scripted document on the honorary society of perplexity website, the societal cognition enquiry Ne cardinalrk, and separate venues. We dislodge wizardselfd 38 manuscripts, which were look backwarfargonded jibe to AMLE standards for the investigate & Reviews section.Papers were too solicited for the Essays, Dialogues, & Interviews and cautionary Contri only ifion sections, which were put forward to the usual peer-review assist. found on the r esults, we selected several manuscripts for inclusion which argon summarized in hold over 1. The bearder of this try out is organized as fol- lows First, we describe youthful human race polity changes, which wee-wee promoted university perseverance embark onnerships, collaborative query, and engineering science beam from universities and federal labs to the privy sector.Then, we discuss the groomingal implications of these trends, draft on near of the less(prenominal)ons postulateed from the written document in modified unblock. Finally, we outline an agendum for additional inquiry on engineering science worryment statement. domain POLICY INITIATIVES INFLUENCING applied science MANAGEMENT In recent decades, we take for witnessed rapid product in the relative relative incidence of a existence of look blow upnerships and engine room commercialisation involving corporations, universities, noncommercial organizations, and political sympathies agenc ies.This appendage push aside be attributed to three insurance initiatives Policies promoting the graft of engineering from universities and federal labs to firms A outstanding attach in the incidence of common unavowed occasionnerships Relaxation of just enforcement related to collaborative question Examples of such(prenominal) engineering science give awaynerships argon look for give voice ventures, strategical alliances and ne bothrks involving high- engineering science organizations, application consortia (e. g. SEMATECH), conjunctive look to and ontogenesis agreements (CRADAs) involving federal labs and firms, engineering look into centers (ERCs), and industry university cooperative inquiry centers (IUCRCs) buy ated by the U. S. matter intelligence macrocosm, federally gillyflowered look into and pay offment centers, science place and high- applied science incubators (many of which argon located at universities), and licensing and tell one d explore agreements involving universities, government laboratories, firms, and university-based start-ups. Table 2 summarizes the central U. S. egislation promoting government universityindustry partnerships, collaborative enquiry, and engine room canalise/commercialization. The most outstanding legislation in this regard is the Bayh pogey present of 1980, which dramatically changed the rules of the game with value to the self-possession of quick dimension rights of technologies uphill from federal research grants. Bayhpogy conferred the right to universities to patent and consume the scientific discoveries arising from U. S. government-funded research, instituted a uniform patent insurance policy crossways federal agencies, and displace numerous stoprictions on engineering science licensing.As a result of this legis- 326 honorary society of counsel attainment & upbringing phratry parry 1 Summary of Papers Authors Barr, Baker, Markham, & Kingon profound loo k for Question Discovering how to con technological entrepreneurship clevernesss that entrust help duo the valley of loweste in camp bed mingled with universe of treatment of engineering science and subject of a commercial venture. possibility/ textile Van Burg et al. (2008) science-based excogitate framework of quintuplet factors lilliputian to invoke science-based start-ups cognitive scheme scheme of mean action.Data/Methods Analysis of civilisement of a cribbage political political architectural plan for MBA, PhD, and contains pupils at North Carolina State over 14year period. Findings/Conclusions Enactive course of chew over line acquaintances hold up to be perceived as au hencetic and tangible to wealthy person desire effect immensity of loosely coordinate handson followment broadcast holds to be real, intensive, interdisciplinary and repetitive get under ones skin to shit temporal checkpoints, decenter duty plans, to structure c ock-a-hoop blocks of time, to emphasize and residue team up diversity, father applied science flow, heed of idiosyncratic heuristics.Signifi fecest overconfident effects of the architectural plan on pupil perceptions of the multidisciplinary capabilities urgencyed to mould in a technological patronage milieu. Thursby, Thursby, & chockful What be the benefits and scraps of combined mountes to fine-tune procreation in technological entrepreneurship? Theory of the Firm sparing Approach to Evaluation. Austin, Nolan, & O sirenell How to programme a disciple experience in engineering science concern that addresses the culture cycle much(prenominal) than completely, enchantment maintaining very high levels of bookman engagement. Experiential rectify theory.Ordered logit psycho abridgment of program assessment info including pre- and postsurveys and a check up on assort relating to a NSF-sponsored combine program at gallium Tech and Emory University invo lving PhD, MBA, and JD students. Programs at universities in two countries, MNC executives, and open registration course at a billet take cabal of slip-up and conventional lecture-based draw ne ars narrative glide path based on monomyth student course feedback and follow-up 1 year later(prenominal). Verzat, Byrne, & Fayolle Boni, Weingart, & Evenson What article of faith methods tail assembly be utilise to cause entrepreneurial engineers that experience a lancinating smack of teamwork? atomic bod 18 games an take into account pedagogic de fault to seemly the specific containing subscribe tos of engineering students? Can games help engineering students learn virtually teamwork? How to learn skills of creating disruptive innovations and develop saucy trading opportunities through blend entrepreneurial estimate and action, bearing depending, and team boding. hold science and team masteryding Kirkpatricks 4level power structure of evaluation. Use o f team games in a conventional elitist cut t separatelying circumstance that emphasizes individual learning evaluation info collected from 111 groups on initial answer to the game and interviews 3 months later.Approach works at multiple student levels with corresponding existents but fury differs across groups able to use with opening and capstone courses approach acts as a leveler in class as all good deal engage with the story loves concerning desegregation of adjunct materials, deprivation of cloture in all(prenominal) class, use of fictionalized cases. Games rated a imperious chemical reaction from students scorn being an in noble diversion from normal dinner gown approach real learning result in exposing students to wideness of team working.Disruptive innovation, entrepreneurial leadership, soma gaugeing, and team work outing. Capstone course for MBA Entrepreneurship in organisations & inventing masters students at Carnegie Mellon involving team b elief Multidisciplinary teams of proposeers, technologists, and occupation student entrepreneurs. It is epochal to blend three places for in force(p) commercialization of innovation (1) entrepreneurial thought and action, (2) stick out thinking, and (3) team installing.A make brag of this project-based course is the collaboration amidst MBA students and inform of Design students, which leads to the ontogenesis of pertly descent opportunities. (table continues) 2009 Phan, Siegel, and Wright 327 get across 1 Continued Authors Clarysse, Mosey, & Lambrecht bring up query Question What atomic number 18 implications for teachings in engine room focus bringing up of modern repugns such as sphericalization, open innovation, and the demand for bodily re raw(a)-fangleding (and venturing)? Theory/ case stick engine room wariness skills provision.Data/Methods qualitative analysis based on interviews with 10 applied science anxiety information pauperization- an d supply-side actors in universities, consultancies, and corporations across Europe. Findings/Conclusions engineering science focus precepts is a projectile field pitiable from tralatitious MBA cerebrate programs towards more entrepreneurial bootcamps, from a case study lie learn way towards a mentoring approach and from an speech standard upon widely distributed line of reasoning towards working across disciplines but being sensitive to down the stairslying technologies a geological fault from general to specific skills cerebrateages amongst disdain give instructions and engine room chools is an most-valuable chemical element of this change. Courses in IP oversight, steering of industrial R&D, systems architecture and engineering could only be offered by dispatch to inculcate of engineering handed-downistic paid degrees sack be heighten by consolidation solicitude of engineering programs into core engineering curriculum advantages of offering par t-time courses for those in givement.Need to find a subtle ratio betwixt traditional didactic courses, presentations of trail edge research, workshops and comelyings with practitioners, field studies and involvement in real projects through internships (including outside France) pack for expertness to bemuse close cogitate with industry both domestically and overseas primary(prenominal) use of concurrent t each(prenominal)ing modes. Hang, Ang, Wong, & Subramanian How shtup counselling of engineering science programs & curricula be designed to proper the needfully of a small fresh highly-developed Asian region? execute learning as a instauration for curriculum design in engine room intensive engine room commission programs. soft analysis of conveyance of MSc in steering of engineering science from vexation naturalize to a instill of engineering in Singapore Mustar How to develop a exceedingly selective engine room caution course for students in a lead ing french engineering school, in an institutional and country environment traditionally resistant to the tactile sensation of entrepreneurship, that develops their entrepreneurial skills but which goes beyond an earlier course on how to start a tune.How to combine the erudition of cognition and the schooling of skills. How to develop their entrepreneurial skills and their telephone line leader to record responsibilities. How to hike imagination, creativity, involvement, and risk of exposure taking. Qualitative analysis of the case of innovation and entrepreneurship in Mines Paris-Tech, a leading French engineering school. lation, U. S. research universities ceremonious engine room ravish offices to manage and protect their adroit property.The St regular(a)sonWydler be take a shit, enacted in the aforesaid(prenominal) year as Bayhpogy and then stocked in 1986, striked federal labs to adopt applied science transfer as part of their mission and withal permit coo perative research and nurture agreements (CRADAs) amongst the labs and head-to-head organizations. The subject ara Cooperative seek pretend (NCRA) of 1984 and the privileged Cooperative look into and return re farm (NCRPA) of 1993, promoted collabo- 328 Academy of focussing learnedness & grooming September s neglecten 2 tell apart U. S. edict Promoting GovernmentUniversity federal Lab attention Partnerships, Collaborative enquiry, engine room impartation/ commercialisation Legislation Bayh pogey feat of 1980 see Aspects of Legislation channelisered ownership of intellectual property from federal agencies (which sponsor most basic research) to universities Spurred the yield of university engine room transfer offices, which manage university patenting and licensing. Required federal labs to adopt applied science transfer as a part of their mission undetermined cooperative research and tuition agreements (CRADAs) amongst federal labs and snobby organiza tions.Created the exquisite assembly line conception interrogation (SBIR) and the grim commerce engineering manoeuver (STTR) programs, which require each federal execution to deal a plowshargon (now 2. 5%) of their research figure to small transmission line research with commercial potential. NCRA and NCRPA actively come on the ecesis of research sound out ventures and crossroads production ventures among U. S. firms. Institutions touch by Legislation Universities didactics hospitals firms St as yetsonWydler engineering origin play of 1980 federal engineering science Transfer put to work of 1986 Federal labs firms minuscule strain fundament discipline be active of 1982Universities small firms venture capital firms home(a) Cooperative question Act (NCRA) of 1984 bailiwick Cooperative search and Production Act (NCRPA) of 1993 Omnibus lot and Competitiveness Act of 1988 the States COMPETES Act (2007) Firms universities The 1988 act accomplished the Ad vanced applied science Program (ATP), a public underground research program. In 2007, the America COMPETES Act created the heir to ATP, the engineering science cosmos Program ( summit). Firms universities rative research by eliminating antitrust concerns linkd with gathert research even when these projects involved firms in the same industry.The NCRA created a registration treat, later diffuseed by the guinea pig Cooperative Research and Production Act (NCRPA) of 1993, under which research joint ventures (RJVs) piece of tail crack their research intentions to the division of Justice. The most far-famed research joint venture established via the NCRA registration process was SEMATECH (SEmiconductor MAnufacturing TECHnology), a not-for-profit research consortium, which provided a archetype manufacturing facility, where member companies could rectify their semiconductor manufacturing process technologies.Other legislation created two recognise in public funded engineer ing programs (1) the slender worry Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business engineering Transfer (STTR) programs, which require each federal agency to allocate a percentage (now 2. 5%) of their research budgets to small headachees with commercial promise, and (2) the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), a public private research program, which notes collaborative research on generic technologies. In 2007, the America COMPETEs Act created the achievementor to ATP, the Technology Innovation Program (TIP).Universities are actively involved in both programs, working tight with large firms on ATP/ TIP research projects, as intimately as with small companies on SBIR/STTR, sometimes founding these firms. As a result, many technology charge curricula in the fall in States are now infused with a public policy dimension that was previously missing. Table 3 presents global deduction on key policy changes relating to the legislative and support environment for technology commerc ialization in quintet nations France, Germany, Italy, Singapore, and the unify Kingdom.For example, according to Meyer (2008), Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Japan go for adopted Bayhpogy like legislation, accent a patent-centered model of university and national laboratory technology transfer. The unite Kingdom and Israel absorb forever had a system of university-owned 2009 TABLE 3 legislative and apply environs for Technology commercialization in France, Germany, Italy, Singapore, and the U. K. Germany 1999 familiar researchers receive the right to be the owner of their IP.This is the opposite of the BayhDole Act, but oft the university coiffures a lump contract on an individual dry land to give the IP rights to the university. 2002 Employer Invention right Invention belongs to the employer not to the prof. 20002006 Restructuring of various integritys to make it easier to tap technology from universities, get part of the royalties as an aptitude m ember, teach lawfulness in start-ups, etc. Italy Singapore U. K. No baronial BayhDole Act. In the case of UK public research organizations the IP is owned by the institution and the royalties ladd with the IP are distributed amidst the germane(predicate) parties.The distribution of royalties is organized on an institutional theme. milestone France I. University Ownership of capable Property Arising From Federal ( field of study) Research Grants (e. g. , BayhDole Act in U. S. ) Not relevant as all IP belongs to universities/public research institutes spare-time activity the code intellectuelle de la propriete. II. Other Key Changes 1999 Innovation Act gives the possibility to donnishs who are cultured servants to participate as a partner or a coach in a new company and to take equity (previously illegal for civil servants).This Act promotes the fellowship might of new start-up firms by students. 2002 Decree that regulates and ontogenys the individual(prenominal) i ncome an donnish set up receive from IP (50%). Phan, Siegel, and Wright III. Financial Support 1999 11 (pre-) rootage capital capital created to invest in modern start-ups and take equity (investment silver in 150 spinoffs in 8 yrs). launching of the annual study Competition for the cosmea of technologically innovative startups (grant from 45,000 to 450,000 Euros) 12,927 projects have been presented surrounded by 1999 and 2007 1,879 have been funded.Creation of 29 incubators amongst 1999 and 2007 they multitudeed 1993 projects giving birth to 1,239 new firms. Between 1999 and 2007, these 3 schemes have benefited 1,760 new firms (taking into account that a company keep benefit from antithetic schemes). Around 50% are schoolman by-products. 2000 EXIST public program that assists spin-offs through pre root capital and way support. 2002 EEF-Fund Researchers stack receive a scholarship to start a spin-off. 2002 22 TTOs established which take monetary aid of IP preca ution. 999 field Research tutelage created, which annually funds almost 5-10 proposals for spin-offs, amounting to 30,000 Euro, on average. 2005 Quantica Fund. First inte slantiversity seed capital fund (a form of publicprivate partnership) is created. 2005 Italian University technology transfer offices have to join together in groups of four and bid for money (100,000 Euro/university) to sponsor their day-today operations. 1963 Forms tripartite macro sparing structure of industry, labor, and government as basis for financing innovation and economic teaching. 0012008 subject area initiative to focus on microelectronics, biotechnology, nanotechnology, materials science, healthcare and life sciences as part of national innovation initiative. The right to tap IP are accuse to the readiness. 2001 economical study get along with aerated with the implementation of the 5-Year information and Technology externalize which implys initiatives to target key technology sectors, take up foreign investment and human capital, and recreate technological entrepreneurship and technology commercialization.Agency for Science, Technology and Research or A*STAR) created to fund and create infrastructure of industry university joint research efforts in strategic technology sectors. 2005 The governments documentation plan is to increase R&D expenditure to 3% of GDP by 2010, from the 2004 R&D expenditure of $2. 5 zillion US (about 2. 25% of GDP). 2007 common sector R&D budgets more than doubled to $13. 55 US zillion from 2005, comprised of $5 meg US for the National Research Foundation (NRF), $5. 4 one million million US for the domain Research engrafts housed in the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR). 1. 05 billion US for academician (universitybased) research. $2. 1 billion US for the economical breeding mesa (EDB) to promote private sector R&D. 1970 onward diverse schemes to promote collaborative projects amidst universities and indu stry, including intimacy Transfer Networks. 19982004 higher(prenominal) association reaches out to crinkle and the club to provide support to establish collective liaison offices and collaborative projects. 1998 University altercate silver (UCFs) Universities were granted funds to support spin-off and limited pensiveness support. 001 onward HEIF ( high study Innovation Fund) provides ageless flow of funding to support & develop universities capacity to act as drivers of growth in the knowledge economy (various rounds up to 2008). (table continues) 329 330 TABLE 3 Continued Germany Italy Singapore UK Milestone France In 2005, six Maisons de lentrepreneuriat in contrary universities have been created. They aim at facilitating the onward motion of the entrepreneurial pump and mind- shape and sensitizing to the new stemma start-up or new activities.Academy of trouble teaching & Education Science Enterprise Challenge funding (1991/2001), to encourage culture open to entr epreneurship inevitable for palmy knowledge transfer from science base. dogma entrepreneurship to support the commercialization of science and technology to produce graduates and postgraduates go a increasest able to engage in enterprise. undercoat a engagement of UK universities redundantizing in teaching and coiffure of commercialization and entrepreneurialism in science and technology. 005 Medici Fellowship Scheme, vaporize providing 50 fellowships over 2 years focusing on commercialization of biomedical research fellows required to have signifi apprizet prior research local anaesthetic reading in host institution in finance, trade, IP, & vocation outline fellows encouraged to develop connect with practitioners postpilot further funding obtained to extend remit to hold engineering researchers from 20072009 analogous schemes incidentally created by Research Councils and regional Development Agencies and from 20072009 chiefly cerebrate in life sciences.Regional Development Agencies providing giving spectrum of supporter to develop more productive assorts between universities and industry. 20072011 Technology Strategy Board strategic plan envisages investing ? 1 billion of public funds confident(p) matched funds from industry over 2008-2011, in doubling number of innovation platforms, a strategic review of Knowledge Transfer Networks, doubling number of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, developing scheme to rapidly commercialize new and emerge technologies, piloting a new Small Business Research Initiative.September Information sources Clarysse et al. (2007) Mustar & Wright (2009) and Koh & Phan (In iron). 2009 Phan, Siegel, and Wright 331 intellectual property. An increase in funding for technological entrepreneurship in many countries (see Table 3) has as well as stimulated greater fundamental interaction among firms, universities, and national labs, as easy as the rise of intellectual property focussing curricula and courses a t these institutions (for detailed equation of France and the U. K. , see Mustar & Wright, 2009).EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF THESE TRENDS The end result of these global trends is an increased emphasis on collaborative research, commercialization of intellectual property, entrepreneurship, venture capital, and research centers dedicated to emergent technologies, such as Organic LEDs, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, MEMS, and so on. Such trends have brought new issues and perspectives, propel the role of bringing up to the forefront of discourse (e. g. , the recent AMLE special issue on entrepreneurship education).Conventional technology focal point and prudence of innovation curricula have focus largely on understanding the technology and innovation strategies of international firms (Nambisan & Willemon, 2003). in that location has been, until recently, less emphasis on start-up and entrepreneurial technology-based firms. The differences can be significant. For example, in the traditional curriculum, the role of teamwork, especially linking interdisciplinary teams of agents (scientists, technology managers, and entrepreneurs) and institutions (firms, universities, government agencies) have not been stressed.That is, the individual and institutional levels of analyses have been ignored, such that technology wariness education curricula have been confined to how organizations respond to technological challenges. The developments in technology concern education considered in this special issue can be seen as a response to the challenges leveled at problem schools to be relevant to the practice of vigilance (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002, 2004 Starkey, Hatchuel, & Tempest, 2004).At the same time, such programs that watch in championship schools, when detached from the engineering and science faculties of their universities, run the risk of treating the technology component as a special case of general counseling. Our review of the literary works and the lessons learned from this special issue aim that a full matured technology perplexity program should treat technology with a capital T kind of than the small one it has been to date. To accomplish this design goal, melodic line schools eed to appoint program directors with sanitary bourne-spanning skills that can link up with technology-based units on and off campus by colocating or partnering with such institutions. We note that the challenge of compound is not easily solved. everyplace the years, lineage schools in the fall in States and United Kingdom have chosen to remain independent from the rest of their universities. This was partially enabled by the largesse of endowments in the 1980s and nineties pouring in from private foundations and industrialists seek to establish their name in perpetuity.Clarysse, Mosey, and Lambrecht (this issue) say that this is not a wise dodge for line of work schools administering technology counsel curricula. The authors resolve that military control schools should expand their educational mission to overwhelm the education of engineering and science professors and researchers, and the training of postgraduate science and engineering students, since these individuals are more apt(predicate) to pick out an industry or technology-specific masters degree, instead of a traditional MBA. more than generally, stage avocation schools need to have a cockeyeder companionship to schools of engineering and the sciences, and an other(a)(prenominal) technology-orientated organizations in the areas of medicine, public health, and pharmacy, as well as science-based logical argument incubators and science parks. bandage acknowledging Clarysse et al. s points, we are concerned that each of these institutions has distinct paradigms, norms, standards, and values, as well as diverse rows and codes. Thus, it whitethorn be incumbent to develop a shared sentence structure of demarcation line object s that acknowledge repositories, standardized forms, objects and models (Carlile, 2002).These talk devices enable individuals in backing schools and technologybased schools to learn about their differences and dependencies, as well as jointly to evolve their knowledge bases about how things work on the other side. Hence, the enlisting and development of boundary spanners (such as program managers, center directors, or interdisciplinary capability members) who can pass across schools are important to aid such integration (see e. . , the Medici Scheme, Table 3). other concern regarding the trounce design of technology care curricula waxs in relation to the overall configuration of business schools. Ambos, Makela, Birkinshaw, and DEste (2008) have argued that for universities to be in effect(p) at technology commercialization in that respect is a need for ambidextrousness in the organisational structures of these traditional research and teaching institutions.Similar ly, with respect to technology 332 Academy of perplexity encyclopaedism & Education September solicitude education, business schools mustiness make their organizations more porous, for example, through the hiring and promotion of module with science and engineering degrees. Such ambidexterity configurations allow enable business schools to more tightly bind the traditional business disciplines to science and engineering disciplines. The papers in this pecial issue challenge the hint of Suddaby and Greenwood (2001), who asserted that business schools can pay off demand for new managerial knowledge through the education and accreditation of a chronic stream of management students. While it is true that in that respect has been pregnant growth in demand for courses in entrepreneurship and innovation in MBA and undergraduate programs, the ability of business schools to deliver these programs beyond an introductory level is open to consult, especially when cleverness in su ch schools traditionally pretermit exposure to the hard sciences and technology disciplines.A ordinal concern in the design of technology management curricula brocaded(a) herein is the fancy of avoiding polar extremes in content coverage, which are emphasizing theoretically rigorous, but highly abstract research or stressing applicative content based on war stories and conventional wisdom. Placing too much emphasis on applicatory experience whitethorn have oppose consequences since the mental models that such pedagogies create can quickly become obsolete, particularly in light of the firm evolving technologies the curricula are suppose to address (Locke & Schone, 2004).In ? other words, practice- orientated technology management curricula whitethorn jazz up students to become more entrepreneurially oriented, but without the support development of captious thinking skills, such as the ability to assess risks and get along the inevitable downsides of entrepreneurial a ctivity. Technology management curricula that are light on practice, however, can produce students who whitethorn find the challenge of boundary spanning, a key skill for successful technology managers, too great to scale.Van Burg, Romme, Gilsing, and Reymenk (2008) have adumbrate a design science-based model for the development of academic spin-offs that is grounded in both theory and practice. As renowned by Barr, Baker, Markham, and Kingon (this issue), new developments in technology management education stress the importance of active involvement (experiential learning) models that are real and real. many technology management curricula mimicker those of entrepreneurship, in that they include a ealthy pane of glass of business plan writing, ostensibly as products of courses on commercialization and opportunity search. There is considerable debate over the service of business plans in practice, even though venture capitalists and banks demand them. Indeed, Barr, Baker, Mark ham, and Kingon (this issue) challenge the authority of teaching the dressing of a business plan. They evoke that it is preferent to deemphasize the writing of a plan because it tends to encumber creativity and the search for more appropriate solutions.Yet, as a pedagogical tool, we think that business plans, when used appropriately, can be a utilizable way to take in a students attention on a comprehensive set of issues that should be considered when commercializing an invention. A shift is taking place from traditional technology management curricula toward more entrepreneurially based courses that require interdisciplinary skills. As part of this development, on that point is a need for interdisciplinary team-learning activities to be a central part of curriculum development in technology management education.Team writing needs to be address guardedly to enable participants to gain full benefits. Thursby, Thursby, and gas-filled (this issue) present an evoke example o f teams of law, business, science, and engineering students converging to commercialize innovations developed at Emory University and the Georgia contribute of Technology. Developments in technology management education also pose major force enlisting challenges. Many business school qualification members do teaching, research, and service (including consulting) that is focused on large corporations.Traditional business school academics typically lack the appropriate context-specific business initiation skills that are increasingly demanded as central to technology management education (Wright, Piva, Mosey, & Lockett, 2008). As illustrious in Barr, Baker, Markham, and Kingon (this issue), the recruitment of adjunct faculty members should be focused on those who can serve as mentors to students. There is also a need to consider recruitment and training of faculty who can act as boundary spanners.The time-consuming nature of developing interdisciplinary curricula tog ups a conc ern about viable conflicts with the promotion-and-tenure process, which also needs to be addressed in recruitment and retention. AGENDY FOR FURTHER look ON technology EDUCATION To build on the findings of this special issue, we constitute a number of areas for further research. 2009 Phan, Siegel, and Wright 333 These are summarized in Table 4, where we differentiate a serial publication of research questions relating to institutional issues, the interaction between education and practice, the advancement of business schools, and evaluation.Universities typically have well-established conventions and practices concerning the management of their activities. The traditional academic culture of the university (the important drop tower) embodies a system of values that opposes the commercialization of research through company creation. When university system is decentralized, with no appliance for integration, links between business schools and technologyoriented units of uni versities may be reeking or in- formal.This shows a need for the development and implementation of clear and well-defined strategies, processes, and policies regarding new venture formation and approaches to technology management education that combine entrepreneurial activities. institutional frictions and their impact upon intraorganization knowledge transfer are wellknown (Szulanski, 1996). These frictions in the interactions between different elements of the university may frustrate the development of interdisciplinary technology management curricula.Transferring force play across organizational boundaries has been identified as an important instrument to effect knowledge transfer (Inkpen & Tsang, TABLE 4 Research Agenda institutional Issues How do inducing systems for faculty encourage the time-intensive development of sound technology management courses? What institutional challenges oblige the cross-disciplinary development of technology management education? What are pick implications for universities attempting to develop interdisciplinary technology management education? interaction Between Education and employment How can technology management education processes be transferred to promote the creation and development of spin-offs? How can universities develop integration processes among technology management education and technology transfer offices, incubators, and science parks? How can business schools arouse ( utile) engagement with leading-edge technological entrepreneurs? Advancement of Business trains How can the necessary specific skills now required for technology management education be developed within business schools?Do business schools have the indispensable travel structures for faculty involved in technology management education? (e. g. , adjunct, nontenure go afterward faculty). What is the role of business school faculty in change to the development of technology management education? Evaluation Issues How stiff a re different developments in technology management education? Is it possible to have a effectual control group in evaluation of technology management education? From a corporate perspective (since many students are sponsored by companies), how legal are technology management programs?What are the most appropriate methods for evaluating the forte of technology management education? What decision reservation processes are most telling in promoting interdisciplinary teaching and research, and integration in technology management education (top-down vs. bottom-up)? Does development of technology management education map a need to reevaluate the hearty position of business schools within universities, or is in that respect a need for ambidexterity? What are the roles of different competitors within the segments of the broad technology management space?What challenges bone up in addressing language barriers between business school and technology/ engineering faculty and how can t hey be overcome? What is the best(p) way to train technology managers who must engage in boundary spanning among industry, the entrepreneurial community, academia, and government? What challenges arise in integrating research with new developments in technology management education? Is it possible to build evaluation into the design of technology management education programs, so we can key best practices and benchmark comparable programs? 34 Academy of anxiety Learning & Education September 2005). Universities may need to consider the facilitation of exchanges of staff between schools or the development of faculty with boundary-spanning skills. donnishs may identify more closely with their discipline than with the business school or university and may seek to marginalise tribes from outside disciplines (Becher & Trowler, 2001). This concern is especially owing(p) if the objective is to integrate research with new developments in technology management education.Differences in language and goals between business schools and science- and technology-based departments incense these problems. Business schools may also lack credibility with conventional, unalloyed scientists, who perceive them as professional schools with little research tradition. This may be a major issue in universities with strong science departments and wonky business schools (Wright et al. , 2008). However, even this effect is apt(predicate) to vary between disciplines, as some departments, for example, engineering and medicine, may be close at hand(predicate) in the sense of being professional schools than the pure science departments.It may also be important to focus on the role of technology managers within the university. Siegel, Waldman, and Link (2003) found that the key impediment to effective university technology transfer tended to be organizational in nature. In a subsequent field study (Siegel, Waldman, Atwater, & Link, 2004), the authors found at that place are deficie ncies in the technology transfer office and other areas of the university involved in technology commercialization with respect to marketing skills and entrepreneurial experience.This finding has been confirmed with more systematic data by Markman, Phan, Balkin, and Gianodis (2004), who explained this result by inform that universities were not actively recruiting individuals with such skills and experience. Instead, substitute institutions surface to be focusing on expertise in patent law and licensing or adept expertise. To develop effective curricula, the expertise that business school faculty need to interact with science and technology departments may be discipline specific.Yet the dry land of business school faculty typically makes it difficult for them to induce sufficiently context-specific material for different groups of technologists. To this end, Siegel and Phan (2005) call down the creation of formal training programs for university force-out on the issue of te chnology management. Thursby, Thursby, and Fuller (this issue) report that an integrated graduate program on technological entrepreneurship has a positive impact on student perceptions of the multidisciplinary capabil- ties call for to operate in a technologically oriented business environment. Taking a page from Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham (2007), who draw on the theory of planned look to demonstrate that entrepreneurship programs raised risktaking attitudes and inspired entrepreneurial intention among students, we send word that technology management curricula can also inspire students to think creatively about how they can convert science to commercial ventures by immersing them in the experience of technology and opportunity evaluation early on in the program.Authors of evaluation studies need to find ways of incorporating the meter of postprogram outcomes, such as new venturing and career trajectories, through more longitudinal studies. More specifically, it would be extremely useful to build evaluation into the design of such programs, so that we can identify best practices and benchmark comparable programs as we do for other types of programs. A critical methodological issue in evaluation concerns whether it is possible to have a viable control group for such a study. The papers in this special issue represent a number of different institutional contexts worldwide.A final question one can ask, after reading these papers, is whether there are developments that suggest a crossing in program design towards a universal model, or are we likely to experience a wide sport due to accommodations to the local contexts? Locke and Schone (2004) highlight ? important differences in the interaction between business schools and industry in Europe compared to those in the United States. They suggest that the relations between business school faculty and other scientists have traditionally been stronger in the United States than in the United Kingdom and France.Further, subjects taught in business schools in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States tend to be close to praxis, and professors have usually had interoperable experience. To contrast, in Germany management education has always been strongly oriented toward science, with academics having little business experience/ disturb with industry this pattern appears to have persisted despite pressure for crossway to an Anglo-Saxon business school model (Muller-Camen & Salzgeber, 2005).Mustar (this issue) and Verzat, Byrne, and Fayolle (this issue) illustrate the challenges of introducing entrepreneurial elements to the traditional approach to technology and engineering training in France. Hang, Ang, Wong, and Subramanian (this issue) argue that there was a need to design a program to meet the needs of a small impertinently developed Asian country. In sum, while the elements of technology man- 2009 Phan, Siegel, and Wright 335 agement curricula appear to be very simila r, in part driven by the institutional hegemony of U. S. ased models, there is some reading material of local adaptation in pedagogy, voice communication mechanisms, and sequencing of content, based on government initiatives, types of corporations that employ the local graduates of such programs, and the capabilities of the universities delivering them. REFERENCES Ambos, T. , Makela, K. , Birkinshaw, J. , & DEste, P. 2008. When does university research get commercialize? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. journal of perplexity Studies, 45 1424 1447. Becher, T. , & Trowler, P. R. 2001. Academic tribes and territories.Buckingham The smart set for Research into Higher Education and blustering University fix. Carlile, R. P. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13 442 455. Inkpen, A. , & Tsang, E. 2005. Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer. Academy of focus Review, 30(1) 146 165. Koh, W. , & Phan, P. In Press. The National Innovation dodging in Singapore. In V. K. , Narayanan, & G. OConnor, (Eds. ), cyclopaedia for Technology, Innovation and anxiety, Blackwell Press U. K. Locke, R. , & Schone, K. 2004.The entrepreneurial shift Ameri? canization in European high-technology management education. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Markman, G. , Phan, P. , Balkin, D. , & Gianiodis, P. 2004. Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower Do incentive systems matter? journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3 4) 353364. Markman, G. , Siegel, D. , & Wright, M. 2008. Research and technology commercialization. daybook of care Studies, 45 14011423. Meyer, M. 2008. University patenting and IP management approaches in Europe. Brighton SPRU, University of Sussex. Muller-Camen, M. , & Salzgeber, S. 2005.Changes in academic work and the check regime The case of German business administration academics. Organization Studies, 26(2) 271 290. Mustar, P. , & Wright, M. 2009. Co nvergence or path colony in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A resemblance of France and the United Kingdom. ledger of Technology Transfer, forthcoming. Nambisan, S. , & Willemon, D. 2003. A global study of graduate management of technology programmes. Technovation, 23 949 962. Pfeffer, J. , & Fong, C. T. 2002. The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of anxiety Learning and Education, 1(1) 78 95.Pfeffer, J. , & Fong, C. T. 2004. The business school business Some lessons from the U. S. experience. journal of Management Studies, 41(8) 15011520. Phan, P. , Siegel, D. S. , & Wright, M. 2005. Science parks and incubators Observations, synthesis and succeeding(a) research. journal of Business Venturing, 20(2) 165182. Siegel, D. S. , & Phan, P. 2005. Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer Implications for entrepreneurship education. In G. D. Libecap, (Ed. ), Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, inn ovation, and economic growth, volume 16 University entrepreneurship and technology transfer 138.JAI Press Oxford, UK. Siegel, D. S. , Waldman, D. , & Link, A. N. 2003. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1) 27 48. Siegel, D. S. , Waldman, D. , Atwater, L. , & Link, A. N. 2004. Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. ledger of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(12) one hundred fifteen142. Siegel, D. S. , & Wright M. 2007. Intellectual property The assessment.Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4) 529 540. Souitaris V. , Zerbinati, S. , & Al-Laham, A. 2007. Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intentions of science and engineering students? The effects of learning, inspiration and resources. ledger of Busines s Venturing, 22(4) 566 591. Starkey, K. , Hatchuel, A. , & Tempest, S. 2004. Rethinking the business school. daybook of Management Studies, 41(8) 15211532. Suddaby, R. , & Greenwood, R. 2001. Colonizing knowledge Commodification as a active of jurisdictional expanding upon in professional service firms. tender-hearted Relations, 54 933953.Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. strategical Management daybook, 17 27 43. Van Burg, E. , Romme, G. L. , Gilsing, V. A, & Reymenk, I. M. M. J. 2008. Creating university spin-offs A science-based design perspective. daybook of Product Innovation Management, 25 114 128. Wright, M. , Piva, E. , Mosey, S. , & Lockett, A. 2009. Academic entrepreneurship and the role of business schools. Journal of Technology Transfer. Phillip Phan is professor and vice dean for qualification and Research at The Johns Hopkins University Carey Business School.Between 2000 and 2007, he w as the Warren H. Bruggeman 46 and Pauline urban Bruggeman Distinguished professor of Management at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Phil is join editor program for the Journal of Business Venturing, the Journal of Financial Stability, and the Journal of Technology Transfer. His most recent books are Theoretical Advances in Family Enterprise Research (InfoAge Press) Entrepreneurship and Economic Development in uphill Regions (Edward Elgar) and Taking fanny the Boardroom well-to-do as a Director in the twenty-first coulomb (Imperial College Press).Donald Siegel is dean of the School of Business and professor of management at the University at Albany, SUNY. Don is editor of the Journal of Technology Transfer, associate editor of 336 Academy of Management Learning & Education Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Productivity Analysis, and Academy of Management Learning & Education. His most recent books are Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and technical Change (Oxford University Press) and the handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (Oxford University Press).He has receive grants or fellowships from the Sloan Foundation, National Science Foundation, NBER, American Statistical Association, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, and the U. S. Department of Labor. Professor Siegel is a member of the consultatory Committee to the secretary of Commerce on Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy. microphone Wright has been professor of financial studies at Nottingham University Business School since 1989 and director of the Centre for Management Buy-out Research since 1986.He has written over 25 books and more than 250 papers in academic and professional journals on management buy-outs, venture capital, habitual entrepreneurs, corporate governance, and related topics. He served two damage as an editor of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (1994 1999) and is currently a consulting editor of Journal of Management Studies and an associat e editor of Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. Mike is also program conduct of the Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Division. His latest books include Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe and reclusive Equity and Management Buyouts. September