Abstract

The aim of this article is to consider approaches and indicators for evaluating commercialization potential, and evaluate performance of the EU countries by the multi-dimensioned indicators of innovations` commercialization financial effectiveness. The results of the analysis. The goal of current study was to consider approaches and indicators for evaluating commercialization potential, and evaluate performance of the EU countries by the multi-dimension indicators of commercialization financial effectiveness. After conducted analyses we can conclude that evaluation of commercial potential has a nature of quality analyses rather than quantitative. Furthermore, it is rather difficult to assess commercialization potential at a country level, as this analysis tends to reveal firm level qualitative opportunities for commercialization. As study has shown commercialization potential can be considered from such points of view as patentability, quality of network activity, commercialization environment, demand and sophistication of the market, origin of invention, licensee availability, R&D. Generally, analysis of commercialization potential reveals different qualitative “abilities” of a firm to feel market demand and analyze own resource opportunities. Three interesting approaches have been outlined for evaluating commercial potential: Technology audit approach, Fuzzy logic method and Four-dimensioned approach. Evaluating the capacity of commercialization of innovations is possible through the use of software complex which automates auditing process and includes the blocks of interactive filling of electronic forms, decision-making, automatic report generation. Electronic forms can involve a number of information blocks, among which are blocks devoted to general information about the peculiarities of innovative project. It is also useful to include blocks that aim to reveal possible risks, intellectual property rights, and possible directions of commercialization. Technological audit is expected to be conducted by using questionnaire methodic and interviewing. Directions of further researches. Further research will be devoted to exploring the role of the parties of the process of commercialization of innovations and the ways of assessing the effectiveness of their commercialization activity. Taking into account that questions of financial relations between investors and companies are among the most complicated ones, crucial emphasis should be also paid to researching peculiarities of legal protection and use of intellectual property objects.

Keywords: commercialization of innovations, commercialization potential, financial effectiveness of commercialization, EU, success of innovations

JEL Classification: O30, O31, O33, O52.

Cite as: Lipkova L. & Braga, D. (2016). Measuring commercialization success of innovations in the EU. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 15-30. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2016.4-01

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Sandberg, B., & Lehtimäki, T. (2014). Networks for the commercialization of innovations: A review of how divergent network actors contribute. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 365-381 [in English].
2. Arora, A., Cohen, W.M., & Walsh, J.P. (2016). The acquisition and commercialization of invention in American manufacturing: Incidence and impact. Research Policy, 45(6), 1113-1128 [in English].
3. Bandarian, R. (2008). Evaluatoin of commercial potential of a new technology at the early stage of development with fuzzy logic. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 2(4), 73-85. Retrieved from http://www.jotmi.org/index.php/GT/article/viewFile/art65/429 [in English].
4. Barlet, Duguet, Encaoua, & Pradel. (1998). The Commercial Success of Innovations: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level in French Manufacturing. Annales d’Économie et de Statistique, 49/50, 457 [in English].
5. Belina, B., Giesko, T., Łopacińska, L., & Walasik, M. (2013). Setting of criteria in the commercial potential assessment method of innovative technological solutions. Problemy Eksploatacji, 2, 221-234. Retrieved from http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-d4ac9c02-4a8b-4be2-8434-030d66bfe46e/c/Belina.pdf [in English].
6. Casper, S. (2013). The spill-over theory reversed: The impact of regional economies on the commercialization of university science. Research Policy, 42(8), 1313-1324 [in English].
7. Cavdar, S.C., & Aydin, A.D. (2015). An Empirical Analysis about Technological Development and Innovation Indicators. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1486-1495 [in English].
8. Cheng, Y.-L., & Lin, Y.-H. (2012). Performance Evaluation of Technological Innovation Capabilities In Uncertainty. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 287-314 [in English].
9. Corkindale, D. (2010). Towards a business model for commercializing innovative new technology. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 7(1), 37-51 [in English].
10. Cybynoga, M. (2010). Tehnolohіchnyi audit yak metod otsіnky rezultatіv naukovo-tehnіchnyh proektіv [Technological audit as a method of evaluation of scientific and technical projects]. Vydavnyctvo Lvіvskoji polіtehnіky, 684, 296-301 [in Ukrainian].
11. Dervojeda, K., Schretlen, J.-H. (2013). European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, & PricewaterhouseCoopers EU Services EESV. Innovation how to convert research into commercial success story? Part 2. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Retrieved from http://dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2777/10645 [in English].
12. Do, T. H., Mazzarol, T., Volery, T., & Reboud, S. (2012). Innovation commercialisation and anticipated return: a typology of innovative SMEs. In Leading from the Edge. (pp. 10-13). Wellington New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.cemi.com.au/sites/all/publications/240_Full_ Paper_Submission.pdf [in English].
13. European Commission, & Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. (2015). Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015. Belgium: European Union [in English].
14. Flash Eurobarometer 394, & TNS Political & Social. (2014). Flash Eurobarometer 394 “The role of public support in the commercialisation of innovations” (No. NB-02-14-536-EN-N) (p. 215). European Unio. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_394_en.pdf [in English].
15. Furman, J. L., Porter, M.E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6), 899-933 [in English].
16. Grünfeld, L.A., Jakobsen, E.W., Kaloudis, A., Skogli, E., & Olsen, D. (2011). Key innovation indicators Learning from principles and practices applied by professional industrial players and investors. Oslo: Nordic Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.nordicinnovation.org/Global/_Publications/Reports/2011/2011_01_Key%20innovation%20indicators_Learning%20from%20principles%20and%20practices%20applied%20by%20professional%20industrial%20players%20and%20investors.pdf [in English].
17. Hsieh, C.-H. (2013). Patent value assessment and commercialization strategy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(2), 307-319. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.014 [in English].
18. IPM Ontario Group, & Ontario Centres of Excellence. (2005). Coommercialization Handbook. An Introductory Guide for Researchers (1st ed.). Retrieved from https://legacy.wlu.ca/documents/7437/Commercialization_Handbook_2005.pdf [in English].
19. Khademi, T., Ismail, K., Lee, C.T., & Garmsari, M. (2015). The Role of Potential Licensee Availability in Facilitating Commercialization of Academic Research Results. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 331-335 [in English].
20. Lin, Y., Wang, Y., & Kung, L. (2015). Influences of cross-functional collaboration and knowledge creation on technology commercialization: Evidence from high-tech industries. Industrial Marketing Management, 49, 128-138 [in English].
21. Mazzarol, T., & Reboud, S. (2006). The strategic decision making of entrepreneurs within small high innovator firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(2), 261-280 [in English].
22. Mohannak, K., & Samtani, L.A. (2014). A criteria based approach for evaluating innovation commercialisation. In Entrepreneurship – Organization – Innovation. Copenhagen Business School, Denmark: CBS. Retrieved from http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/druid/acc_papers/ i1xk9l9pli4jnefryvacrvpjdy22.pdf [in English].
23. Nasierowski, W., & Arcelus, F.J. (2012). About Efficiency of Innovations: What Can be Learned from the Innovation Union Scoreboard Index. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 792-801 [in English].
24. Rylková, Ž., & Chobotová, M. (2014). Protection of Intellectual Property as a Means of Evaluating Innovation Performance. Procedia Economics and Finance, 14, 544-552 [in English].
25. Vovk, M. (2015). Key role of human capital in management of international competitiveness of a firm. Economic Space, 100, 5-12 [in English].
26. Wagner, S., & Wakeman, S. (2016). What do patent-based measures tell us about product commercialization? Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 45(5), 1091-1102 [in English].
27. Walsh, P.R. (2012). Innovation Nirvana or Innovation Wasteland? Identifying commercialization strategies for small and medium renewable energy enterprises. Technovation, 32(1), 32-42 [in English].
28. Wu, Y., Welch, E.W., & Huang, W.-L. (2015). Commercialization of university inventions: Individual and institutional factors affecting licensing of university patents. Technovation, 36-37, 12-25 [in English].