Search results

This article explores whether six broad categories of activities undertaken by Canadian business scholars’ academics: publications record, citations record, teaching load, administrative load, consulting activities, and knowledge spillovers transfer, are complementary, substitute, or independent, as well as the conditions under which complementarities, substitution and independence among these activities are likely to occur.

A multivariate probit model is estimated to take into account that business scholars have to consider simultaneously whether or not to undertake many different academic activities. Metrics from Google Scholar of scholars from 35 Canadian business schools, augmented by a survey data on factors explaining the productivity and impact performances of these faculty members, are used to explain the heterogeneities between the determinants of these activities.

Overall, the results reveal that there are complementarities between publications and citations, publications and knowledge spillovers transfer, citations and consulting, and between consulting and knowledge spillovers transfer. The results also suggest that there are substitution effects between publications and teaching, publications and administrative load, citations and teaching load, and teaching load and administrative load. Moreover, results show that public and private funding, business schools’ reputation, scholar’s relational resources, and business school size are among the most influential variables on the scholar’s portfolio of activities.

This study considers simultaneously the scholar’s whole portfolio of activities. Moreover, the determinants considered in this study to explain scholars’ engagement in different activities reconcile two conflicting perspectives: (1) the traditional self-managed approach of academics, and (2) the outcomes-focused approach of university management.

The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate a 12-item scale of knowledge spillovers transfer (KST) from scholars in business schools to practitioners outside academia.

A sample of 807 faculty members from 35 Canadian business schools was used for the psychometric evaluation of the questionnaire. The reliability of the scale was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. The construct validity was examined through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The nomological validity was assessed by analyzing the prediction of two output indicators by means of KST using structural equation modeling and by testing differences in KST according to other related variables.

The psychometric properties obtained indicate that the instrument is reliable and valid, which invites to its use as a diagnostic tool of KST from scholars in business schools to users outside academia.

The KST questionnaire developed and validated in this study can be considered as a useful practical tool enabling the assessment of business scholars’ KST activities.

The KST questionnaire developed may enlighten business schools’ administrators and policy-makers to identify and implement actions to improve the transfer of knowledge between research and practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, despite the wide range of quantitative measures proposed in the literature, this is the first study that aims to present a comprehensive, accurate and validated scale to measure KST from scholars in business schools to practitioners outside academia.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework identifying and differentiating how knowledge and technology transfer organizations (KTTOs) create value from how they capture and transfer value.

The argument of the paper is developed in two steps. First, the knowledge and technology transfer process is conceptualized as a value chain. Second, the internal KTTO's value chain perspective is extended by integrating the knowledge and technology transfer value chain into a business model conceptual perspective in order to emphasize the value captured by the clients of KTTOs. Then, the authors examine how KTTO managers could describe, benchmark and improve their business models by altering or reinforcing how they are positioned with respect to the interdependent elements of their business model. Finally, the elements of the conceptual framework are used to derive emblematic types of business models and provide exemplary cases for each emblematic case.

Looking at KTTO management under the lenses of business models invites KTTO managers to look at knowledge and technology transfer as a whole. It suggests to managers to invest resources not only in the improvement of these elements where their organizations are strong, but also in these elements that constitute their weakest elements in the business model. Failure to improve the weakest elements of the business model might compromise the overall knowledge and technology transfer capabilities and performances of KTTOs.

The conceptual framework developed in this paper is intended as a starting point to explore how KTTO managers may be more effective in creating and capturing value from knowledge transfer.