RICERCA ITALIANA     

FIRB simili:

• 1 - Un approccio multideimensionale al trasferimento tecnologico
• 2 - Modelli e strumenti per la valutazione dell'impatto a breve e medio termine degli investimenti in ricerca e innovazione nelle imprese sul sistema produttivo del paese
• 3 - Ricerca ed imprenditorialità nella società della conoscenza: effetti sulla competitività dell'Italia in Europa
• 4 - La valutazione degli investimenti in ricerca nelle imprese e nel sistema economico: approcci e metodologie
• 5 - ArcheoMedSat: progetto e sperimentazione di rilevamento satellitare e web gis per la valorizzazione di monumenti e siti archeologici del Mediterraneo tra Oriente e Occidente.
• 6 - Tecnologie dell'informazione e della comunicazione per la giustizia
• 7 - VIRTUAL IMMERSIVE COMMUNICATIONS (VICOM)
• 8 - PIATTAFORME ABILITANTI PER GRIGLIE COMPUTAZIONALI A ELEVATE PRESTAZIONI ORIENTATE A ORGANIZZAZIONI VIRTUALI SCALABILI
• 9 - La frammentazione internazionale della produzione delle imprese italiane. Nuovi modelli organizzativi e ruolo delle tecnologie dell'informazione
• 10 - Governo elettronico per i Paesi del Mediterraneo (eG4M) - Nuove metodologie nelle aree sociologica, economica, organizzativa e tecnologica per l'adattamento e il miglioramento del modello per il governo elettronico nei paesi del mediterraneo, concezione e produzione di linee guida per la pianificazione strategica, azioni per la sensibilizzazione e disseminazione del nuovo modello per il governo elettronico e dei servizi per l'accesso a dati pubblici.

Classificazione scientifico-disciplinare

• Area scientifico disciplinare: Scienze economiche e statistiche
  • ECONOMIA E GESTIONE DELLE IMPRESE

Classificazione geografica

• Regione: Emilia Romagna

Bibliografia

Agrawal A., Henderson R., 2002, Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT, Management Science 48(1):44-60.
Arrow K. J., 1962, ‘Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for innovation’. In Nelson R.R. (ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
AUTM, 2003. AUTM licensing survey: FY 2001, www.autm.net
Balconi, M., Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., 2004, Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data, Research Policy, 33(1):127-145
Brett, Alistair, David V. Gibson and Raymond W. Smilor. (Eds), 1991, University Spin-off Companies: Economic Development, Faculty Entrepreneurs, and Technology Transfer, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Calderini M., Garrone P. and Sobrero M., 2003, Corporate governance, market structure and innovation (Edward Elgar, U.K.).
Carayannis, Elias, Everett Rogers, Kazuo Kurihara and Marcel Allbritton, 1998, ‘High Technology Spin-offs from Government R&D Laboratories and Research Universities’, Technovation 18(1), 1–11.
Cassia L., S. Paleari e S. Vismara, 2002, “Metodi di valutazione e tassi di crescita impliciti nelle IPO italiane”, Analisi Finanziaria, 48
Chiesa V., Piccaluga A., 2000, “Exploitation and Diffusion of Public Research: the Case of Academic Spin-off Companies in Italy”, R&D Management, 30 (4), 329-339.
Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., Walsh J.P., 2002, Links and Impacts: The influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D, Management Science, 48(1), 1-23.
Colyvas J. et al., 2002, How do universities inventions get into practice?, Management Science 48 n.1, 61-72.
Dasgupta P., David P.A., 1994, Toward a new economy of science, Research Policy, 23, 487-521.
Damodaran, A., 2001, “The dark side of valuation: Valuing Old Tech, New Tech, and New Economy Companies”, Prentice Hall
Di Gregorio D., Shane S., 2003, “Why do some Universities Generate more Start-ups than Others?”, Research Policy, 32, pp. 209-227.
Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., 2003, “The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations” Research Policy 29 109–123.
Friedman J. and Silberman J., 2003, University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter?, The Journal of Technology Transfer 28, 17-30.
Georghiou, L., Roessner, D., 2000, “Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods” Research Policy 29, 657–678
Geuna, A., Martin, B. R., 2003, “University research evaluation and funding: an international comparison”, Minerva 41, 277–304
Gittelman M., Kogut B., 2003, Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns, Management Science, 49(4), 366-382.
Goldfarb B. and Henrekson M. R., 2003, Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property, Research Policy 32, 639-58.
Guy K. and Quintas P., 1995, Collaborative, pre-competitive R&D and the firm, Research Policy 24, 325-348.
Henderson R., Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M., 1998, Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting 1965-1988, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80:119-127.
Henrekson M. and Rosenberg N., 2001, Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lesson from U.S. and Sweden The Journal of Technology Transfer 26, 207-31.
Jensen R. and Thursby M. C., 2001, Proofs and prototypes for sale: The tale of university licensing, American Economic Review 91, 240-259.
Lach S., Shankerman M., 2003, Incentives and invention in universities, CEPR, London,
Discussion Paper 3916, London, UK.
Lee Y. S., 1998, University-Industry collaboration on technology transfer: views from the ivory tower, Policy Studies Journal, Spring, 69-84.
Mansfield E., 1991, Academic research and industrial innovation, Research Policy 20, 1-12.
Mansfield E. and Lee J. Y., 1996, The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support, Research Policy 25, 1047-1058.
Martin S. and Scott J. T., 2000, The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation, Research Policy 29, 437-447.
Meyer-Krahmer F. and Schmoch U., 1998, Science-based technologies: University-industry interactions in four fields, Research Policy 27, 835-851.
Mian S. A., 1996, Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to tenant firms, Research Policy 25, 325-35.
Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R., Sampat B.N., Ziedonis A.A., 2002, The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980, Research Policy, 30: 99–119.
Mowery D.C., Sampat B. N. and Ziedonis A. A., 2002, Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning and the characteristics of US university patents after the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992, Management Science 48 n.1, 73-89.
Nelson R. R., 1959, The simple economics of basic scientific research, Journal of Political Economy 67, 297-306.
Nelson R. R., 1990, U.S. technological leadership: Where did it come from and where did it go?, Research Policy 19, 117-32.
Nelson R.R., 2001, Observations on the Post-Bayh-Dole Rise of Patenting at American
Universities, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26:13-19.
Nonaka I. and Nishiguchi T., 2001, Knowledge emergence: social, technical and evolutionary dimension of knowledge creation, (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
OECD, 2003, Turning science into business. Patenting and licensing at public research organizations, (Paris).
Pavitt K., 2001, Public policies to support basic research: what can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (And what they should not learn), Industrial and Corporate Change 10, 761-79.
Piccaluga A. and Patrono A., 2001, L’attività brevettuale degli enti pubblici di ricerca italiani. Un’analisi sul periodo 1982-2001, Economia e Politica Italiana 109, 81-114.
Pirnay F., Surlemont B., Nlemvo F., 2003, “Toward a Typology of University Spin-offs”, Small Business Economics, 21, pp. 335-369.
Roberts E. B., 2001, Benchmarking global strategic management of technology. Research Technology Management, 44 n. 2, 25-36.
Roberts, G. 2003, “Review of research assessment” Report to the UK funding bodies.
Rosenberg N. and Nelson R. R., 1994, American universities and technical advance in industry, Research Policy 23, 323-48.
Sampat B. N., Mowery D.C. and Ziedonis, A. A., 2002, Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: A re-examination, Draft manuscript.
Senker J. and Senker P., 1994, Academic-Industry link. Implications of industrial relationship for Universities: A case study of the U.K. teaching company scheme, Science and Public Policy 24, 173-182.
Shane, S., 2001, “Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT, Management Science, forthcoming.
Small H.G. 1993 “Macro-level changes in the structure of co-citation clusters: 1983-1989”,
Tijssen R.J.W. 1992 “A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: Co-classification analysis of energy research”, Research Policy, 21, pp. 27-44.
Thursby J. C., Jensen R. and Thursby M. C., 2001, Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities, Journal of Technology Transfer 26, 59-72.
Thursby J.G., Kemp S., 2002, Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing, Research Policy, 31:109–124.
Van Raan, A.F.J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., 2002, “Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research. Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research” Research Policy 31, 611-632.
Werner, B. M.; Souder, W. E., 1997, “Measuring R&D Performance - State of the Art", Research, Technology Management, vol. 40, no. 2
White, G., A. C. Sondhi e D. Fried, 1998, “The Analysis and use of Financial Statements”, Wiley, NY.

Parole Chiave

trasferimento tecnologico; ricerca pubblica; strutture di governance; analisi brevettuali; spin-off/start-up; produttività scientifica e tecnologica