Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Forestry Research
Volume 2011, Article ID 516135, 16 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/516135
Review Article

Conceptual and Empirical Themes regarding the Design of Technology Transfer Programs: A Review of Wood Utilization Research in the United States

1Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA
2Forest Products Laboratory, US Department of Agriculture, Madison, WI 53726, USA

Received 7 March 2011; Revised 6 June 2011; Accepted 13 July 2011

Academic Editor: I. B. Vertinsky

Copyright © 2011 Paul V. Ellefson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. P. V. Ellefson, M. A. Kilgore, K. E. Skog, and C. D. Risbrudt, “Wood utilization research and product development capacity in the United States: a review,” Staff Paper Series Number 207, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn, USA, 2010, http://www.forestry.umn.edu/Publications/index.htm.
  2. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Wood utilization: federal research and development activities, support, and technology transfer,” Tech. Rep. GAO-06-624, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, USA, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06624.pdf.
  3. P. V. Ellefson, M. A. Kilgore, K. E. Skog, and C. D. Risbrudt, “Technology transfer and knowledge utilization: a review of systems and organizations relevant to wood utilization research and product development in the United States,” Staff Paper Series Number 208, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn, USA, 2010, http://www.forestry.umn.edu/Publications/index.htm.
  4. P. V. Ellefson and M. A. Kilgore, “United States wood-based industry: a review of structure and organization,” Staff Paper Series Number 206, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn, USA, 2010, http://www.forestry.umn.edu/Publications/index.htm.
  5. National Capital Venture Association, Corporate Venture Capital Investment Analysis: 1995–2009, National Capital Venture Association, Arlington, Va, USA, 2010.
  6. S. Shane, The Importance of Angel Investing in Financing the Growth of Entrepreneurial Ventures, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
  7. S. J. Kline and N. Rosenberg, “An overview of innovation,” in The Positive Sum Strategy, R. Landau and N. Rosenberg, Eds., p. 640, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1986. View at Google Scholar
  8. AngelSoft Inc., AngelSoft: Early Stage Investment Group, AngelSoft Inc., New York, NY, USA, 2010.
  9. S. Maital, S. Ravid, D. V. R. Sesadri, and A. Dummanis, “Toward a grounded theory of effective business incubation,” Vikalapa, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1–13, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  10. L. Knopp, State of the Business Incubation Industry: 2006, National Business Incubation Association, Athens, OH, USA, Catalog ID 396, 2007.
  11. O. Gassmann, “Towards a resource-based view of corporate incubators,” International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 19–45, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  12. European Commission, “Benchmarking of business incubators,” Center for Strategy and Evaluation Services, European Commission Enterprise Directorate General, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
  13. R. Landry, M. Lamari, and N. Amara, “The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies,” Public Administration Review, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 192–205, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. National Business Incubator Association, Principles and Best Practices of Successful Business Incubation, National Business Incubator Association, Athens, Ohio, USA, 2010.
  15. A. Frenkel, D. Shefer, and M. Miller, “Public versus private technological incubator programmes: privatizing the technological incubators in Israel,” European Planning Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 189–210, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. P. D. Cassidy, Cooperative Extension System Personnel in Forestry and Forest products, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  17. U.S. Small Business Administration, The Small Business Economy 2006: A Report to the President, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  18. U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA's Small Business Investment Program, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
  19. National Governor's Association, “State strategies to promote angel investment for economic growth,” Center for Best Practices, National Governor's Association, Washington, DC, USA, 2008, http://www.nga.org/cms/home.html. View at Google Scholar
  20. J. Williams, State Tax Credits and Government Incentives for Angel Investing, Belmont University, Nashville, Tenn, USA, 2008, Angel Capital Investment Foundation.
  21. Society of Wood Science and Technology, SWST Directory of North American Schools Offering Baccalaureate and Graduate Programs in Wood Science and Technology, Society of Wood Science and Technology, Monona, Wis, USA, 2010.
  22. A. N. Link and J. R. Link, Government as Entrepreneur, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass, USA, 2009.
  23. R. Rich, “Measuring knowledge utilization process and outcomes,” International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 3–10, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  24. C. H. Weiss, “The many meanings of research utilization,” Public Administration Review, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 426–431, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  25. C. Oh, “Science and politics: a view from an information utilization perspective,” in Proceedings of the International Political Science Association World Congress, International Political Science Association, Quebec, Canada, 2000.
  26. O. Belkhodja, N. Amara, R. Landry, and M. Ouimet, “The extent and organizational determinants of research utilization in Canadian health services organizations,” Science Communication, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 377–417, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. J. Knott and A. Wildavsky, “If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem?” Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 537–578, 1980. View at Google Scholar
  28. S. A. Zahra and G. George, “Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 185–203, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. M. J. Spilsbury and R. Nasi, “The interface of policy research and the policy development process: challenges posed to the forestry community,” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 193–205, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovation, Free Press, New York, NY, USA, 1983.
  31. T. Boyle, V. Kumar, and U. Kumar, “Determinants of integrated product development diffusion,” R and D Management, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 37–54, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. D. Gerwin and N. J. Barrowman, “An evaluation of research on integrated product development,” Management Science, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 938–953, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. E. J. Nijssen and R. T. Frambach, “Determinants of the adoption of new product development tools by industrial firms,” Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 121–131, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. J. Poolton and I. Barclay, “New product development from past research to future applications,” Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 197–212, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. P. V. Ellefson, M. A. Kilgore, K. E. Skog, and C. D. Risbrudt, “Forest products research and development organizations in a worldwide setting: a review of structure, governance, and measures of performance of organizations outside the United States,” Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-172, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Madison, Wiss, USA, 2007, http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/index.php. View at Google Scholar
  36. D. Strelneck and P. Linquiyi, “Environmental technology transfer to developing countries: practical lessons learned during implementation of the Montreal Protocol,” in Proceedings of the 7th Annual Research Conference, Association for Public Policy and Management, Fairfax, Va, USA, 1995.
  37. E. Bardach, Getting Agencies to Work Together: Practice and Theory, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
  38. A. N. Link and L. L. Bauer, Cooperative Research in U.S. Manufacturing: Assessing Policy Initiatives and Corporate Strategies, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, USA, 1989.
  39. National Research Council, Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
  40. R. R. Cosner, “Industrial research institute's R&D trends forecast for 2010,” Research Technology Management, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 14–22, 2010. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. Y. Baba, N. Shichijo, and S. R. Sedita, “How do collaborations with universities affect firms' innovative performance? The role of collaboration in the advanced materials field,” Research Policy, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 756–764, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. N. Radjou, “A network of innovation: new era of rapid innovation requires new approaches to R&D,” Strategic Direction, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 39–41, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  43. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “NASA license and patent program: Marshall Space Flight Center,” National Space Flight Center, National Aeronautic and Space Administration, Huntsville, Ala, USA, 2010, http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/.