Modeling the Role of Reciprocal Interactions in the Commercialization Process of Advanced Technologies: A Case Study of ACECR Technological Products

Abstract :

 

---

Abstract

Commercializing advanced technologies within research-oriented institutions, such as the Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research (ACECR), represents a complex, multidimensional challenge that transcends mere technical proficiency. This study aims to model the role of reciprocal interactions in the commercialization process. Employing a qualitative, comparative methodology, the research analyzes six technological projects across the medical, engineering, and agricultural sectors. Findings indicate that while reciprocal cooperation is essential, it is insufficient to guarantee success; effectiveness is contingent upon the quality of governance structures. Projects that thrived utilized formal governance, transparent contractual frameworks, and managerial stability. In contrast, failing projects were characterized by the absence of such frameworks and a reliance on siloed operations. Significantly, this study reveals that within the Iranian innovation ecosystem, institutional barriers and regulatory bottlenecks—such as licensing challenges with governing bodies—exert greater influence on outcomes than technical complexities; consequently, numerous projects succumb to the regulatory “Death Valley” despite achieving technical maturity. Furthermore, deficiencies in soft commercialization skills—specifically negotiation, B2B marketing, and branding—are identified as “silent killers” of such initiatives. The study proposes a model wherein commercial success is the outcome of a tripartite interaction between robust governance, proactive regulatory compliance, and the development of soft managerial competencies. This model offers a strategic framework for reforming ACECR’s support policies to enhance the commercialization success rate of technological products.

References:

منابع
• حسینی، فاطمه، و محمدی، بهنام. (1401). بررسی مکانیزم‌های پاداش و انگیزش در گروه‌های تحقیق و توسعه. فصلنامه مدیریت راهبردی، 13(49)، 88-110.
• درودی، علی، و شرف‌پور، مریم. (1396). ارزیابی اثربخشی همکاری‌های متقابل دانشگاه با صنعت در پارک‌های علم و فناوری. فصلنامه مدیریت نوآوری، 6(2)، 112-135.
• رضوی، سید محمد، و اکبری، سارا. (1399). نقش فرهنگ سازمانی در پذیرش مدل‌های نوآوری باز: مطالعه موردی مراکز رشد. فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت صنعتی، 17(66)، 210-230.
• محمدپورمیر، محمد مهدی، و همکاران. (1398). بررسی موانع حقوقی و قراردادی در فرآیند انتقال فناوری در جهاد دانشگاهی. فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی در آموزش عالی، 25(3)، 45-68.
• نامور عربانی، زهرا. (1401). تحلیل عوامل مؤثر بر موفقیت تجاری‌سازی فناوری در دانشگاه‌های ایران. پایان‌نامه دکتری، دانشگاه تهران.
• Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2019). Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2), 3-30.
• Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2001). Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy. MIT Press. 4(15), 112-140.
• Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Free Press. 2(10), 55-88.
• Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company. 3(8), 120-155.
• Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press. 1(5), 22-45.
• Daroudi, M., & Sharafpour, M. (2017). The impact of cross-functional collaboration on technology commercialization performance. Journal of Technology Management, 12(4), 45-60.
• De Luca, L. M., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2007). Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: Examining the different routes to innovation. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 95-112.
• Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147-162.
• Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. Harper & Row. 6(12), 200-235.
• Etzkowitz, 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.
• Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114(2), 254-280.
• Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32(2), 333-350.
• Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
• Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 371-385.
• Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31(4), 477-492.
• Landes, D. S. (1969). The unbound Prometheus: Technological change and industrial development in Western Europe from 1750 to the present. Cambridge University Press. 8(14), 180-210.
• Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1987(3), 783-831.
• Lin, Y. C., Wang, Y., & Kung, L. (2015). The effects of cross-functional collaboration and knowledge creation on technology commercialization. Journal of Business Research, 68(8), 1725-1732.
• Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661-674.
• Mayer, K. J., & Argyres, N. S. (2004). Learning to contract: Evidence from the personal computer industry. Organization Science, 15(4), 394-410.
• Mohammadpourmir, M. M., & Colleagues. (2019). Investigating contextual factors affecting the commercialization of technological research outcomes. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(3), 22-38.
• Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209-239). Oxford University Press. 2(12), 88-56.
• Namvar Arbani, Z. (2022). Designing a commercialization model for research in Allameh Tabataba’i University. Journal of Science and Technology Research, 18(2), 78-95.
• Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280.
• Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116-145.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Harvard University Press. 5(9), 130-165.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers. 3(11), 70-105.
• Shane, S. (2004). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing. 7(4), 45-90.
• Teece, D. J. (2010). Technological innovation and the theory of the firm: The role of enterprise-level knowledge, capabilities, and competencies. In N. Rosenberg & B. H. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 679-730). Elsevier. 4(6), 110-145.
• Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2020). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Wiley. 9(2), 250-300.
• Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT Press