The research emphasizes the role of technology scouting and innovation behaviors in the development of the startup ecosystem and in the innovative development of companies and nations. The importance of these factors in relationships between universities and industry is highlighted. The authors consider technology scouting as one of the functions of innovation intermediaries and focus on the concept of innovation intermediary. The study is based on interviews with university and industry representatives to identify barriers in the interaction between the parties (some interviews are made as references). The main barriers in the interaction with universities and industry were noted as differences in goals and key performance indicators, commercialization issues, and bureaucracy. In order to fix these barriers, both sides are supposed to communicate more and make use of high-quality third-party services. Respondents from both industry and university side described the difficulties caused by these barriers.
AllenWDHallTW (2008) Innovation, Managerial Effort, and start-up Performance. The Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance & Business Ventures. https://doi.org/10.57229/2373-1761.1029
2.
AndersonALiJ (2014) Entrepreneurship and networked collaboration: synergetic innovation, knowledge and uncertainty. Journal of General Management40: 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630701404000102
3.
AnderssonMHenreksonM (2015) Local competitiveness fostered through local institutions for entrepreneurship In: The Oxford Handbook of Local Competitiveness, pp. 145–190. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199993307.013.8
4.
ArvanitisSStuckiT (2014) The impact of venture capital on the persistence of innovation activities of start-ups. Small Business Economics42: 849–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9499-3
5.
BelderbosRTongTWWuS (2014) Multinationality and downside risk: the roles of option portfolio and organization. Strategic Management Journal35(1): 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2087
6.
BendisRASelineRSBylerEJ (2008) A new direction for technology-based economic development: the role of innovation intermediaries. Industry and Higher Education22(2): 73–80. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000008784139460
7.
BilelT (2023) Analysis of International Activities of the Russian Railways Holding.
8.
BinksMEnnewC (1996) The impact of service quality and service characteristics on customer retention: small business and their banks in the UK. British Journal of Management7: 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00116.x
9.
BozemanBBoardmanC (2014) Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer39(1): 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9281-8
10.
BrundinEWigrenCIsaacsE, et al. (2008) Triple helix networks in a multicultural context: triggers and barriers for fostering growth and sustainability. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship13(1): 77–98. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946708000867
CaoC (2019) Science, technology and innovation in China: progress, problems and prospects In: China’s Economic Modernisation and Structural Changes: Essays in Honour of John Wong, pp. 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811203626_0006
13.
CarayannisEGCampbellDFJ (eds) (2006) In: Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters: A Comparative Systems Approach Across the United States, Europe, and Asia. Greenwood Publishing Group.
14.
CarayannisEGCampbellDFJ (2009) ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management46(3): 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2009.023374
15.
CarayannisEGBarthTDCampbellDFJ (2012) The quintuple helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship1(2): 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2
16.
ChesbroughHW (2003a) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business Press.
17.
ChesbroughH (2003b) The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review44(3): 35–41.
DimovDDe ClercqD (2006) Venture capital investment strategy and portfolio failure rate: a longitudinal study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice30(2): 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00118.x
20.
EtzkowitzHLeydesdorffL (1995) The triple Helix—University–industry–government relations: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review14(1): 14–19.
21.
EtzkowitzHLeydesdorffL (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy29(2): 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
22.
GiulianiEArzaV (2009) What drives the formation of “valuable” university–industry linkages? Insights from the wine industry. Research Policy38(6): 906–921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.006
23.
HafkesbrinkJKrauseDWestermaierR (2010) Old wine in new bottles? A case study on organizational antecedents for open innovation management. In: HafkesbrinkJHoppeHUSchlichterJ (eds) Competence Management for Open Innovation: Tools and IT Support to Unlock the Innovation Potential Beyond Company Boundaries. Josef Eul Verlag.
24.
HelfatCELiebermanMB (2002) The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history. Industrial and Corporate Change11: 725–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/11.4.725
25.
HuangH-CLaiM-CLoK-W (2012) Do founders’ own resources matter? The influence of business networks on start-up innovation and performance. Technovation32: 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.12.004
26.
JoHLeeJ (1996) The relationship between an entrepreneur’s background and performance in a new venture. Technovation161–171. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(96)89124-3
27.
KhannaTPalepuKGSinhaJ (2015) Strategies that fit emerging markets In: International Business Strategy. Routledge, pp. 615–631.
28.
KimatuJ (2016) Evolution of strategic interactions from the triple to quad helix innovation models for sustainable development in the era of globalization. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship5: 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0044-x
29.
KönigJSuwalaLDelargyC (2020) Helix models of innovation and sustainable development goals. In: Leal FilhoWAzulAMBrandliL, et al. (eds) Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71059-4_91-1
30.
LaursenKSalterA (2004) Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal27(2): 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
31.
LechnerCDowlingM (2003) Firm networks: external relationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development15: 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620210159220
32.
LinkANScottJT (2005) Opening the ivory tower’s door: an analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies. Research Policy34(7): 1106–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.015
33.
MadaniFKhormaeiR (2013) Overview of evolution in study of external technology search. Proceedings of PICMET’13: Technology Management in the IT-Driven Services. 2058–2060. Available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6641856/.
34.
MartinBCMcNallyJJKayMJ (2013) Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: a meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing28: 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002
McMullanWGillinL (1998) Developing technological start-up entrepreneurs: a case study of a graduate entrepreneurship programme at swinburne university. Technovation18: 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00119-3
37.
MianSLamineWFayolleA (2016) Technology business incubation. Technovation.
38.
MinJ-WKimY (2014) What affects corporate commercialization of public technology transfer in Korea?Asian Journal of Technology Innovation22(2): 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2014.956858
39.
MoweryDCSampatBN (2004) The bayh–dole act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: a model for other OECD governments?The Journal of Technology Transfer30(1): 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-004-4361-z
40.
NawazWKoçM (2020) Industry, University and Government Partnerships for the Sustainable Development of Knowledge-based Society. Springer.
41.
PerissiVJepsenKGlassCK, et al. (2010) Deconstructing repression: evolving models of co-repressor action. Nature Reviews Genetics11(2): 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2736
42.
PerkmannMWalshK (2008) Engaging the scholar: three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy37(10): 1884–1891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.009
43.
PerkmannMTartariVMcKelveyM, et al. (2013) Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy42(2): 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
44.
PhanPHSiegelDSWrightM (2005) Science parks and incubators. Journal of Business Venturing20(2): 165–182.
45.
PratchL (2005) Value-added investing: a framework for early stage venture capital firms. Journal of Private Equity8(3): 13–29. https://doi.org/10.3905/jpe.2005.516844
46.
RangaMEtzkowitzH (2013) Triple helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Industry and Higher Education27(4): 237–262. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0165
47.
RobinsonPBSextonEA (1994) The effect of education and experience on self-employment success. Journal of Business Venturing9: 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)90006-X
48.
ŞendoğduAADikenA (2013) A research on the problems encountered in the collaboration between university and industry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences99: 966–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.570
49.
ShinnT (2002) The triple helix and new production of knowledge: prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science32(4): 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032004004
50.
SinghAWongP-KHoY-P (2015) The role of universities in the national innovation systems of China and the East Asian NIEs: an exploratory analysis of publications and patenting data. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation23(2): 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2015.1074515
SubramonianHRasiahR (2016) University–industry collaboration and technological innovation: sequential mediation of knowledge transfer and barriers in automotive and biotechnology firms in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation24(1): 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2016.1151177
53.
SzarekJPiecuchJ (2018) The importance of startups for construction of innovative economies. International Entrepreneurship Review4(2): 69–78. https://doi.org/10.15678/PM.2018.0402.05
54.
TownesMS (2026) The use of faculty inventor social capital to facilitate university technology transfer: a multiple case study inquiry using qualitative comparative analysis. Industry and Higher Education. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422226141783
55.
TraniEPHolsworthRD (2010) The Indispensable University: Higher Education, Economic Development, and the Knowledge Economy. R&L Education.
56.
TuunainenJ (2002) Reconsidering the mode 2 and the triple helix: a critical comment based on a case study. Science Studies15(2): 36–58. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.55144
57.
UngerJMRauchAFreseM, et al. (2011) Human capital and entrepreneurial success: a meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing26: 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.004
WalterAAuerMRitterT (2006) The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing21(4): 541–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.005
WhiteDROwen-SmithJMoodyJ, et al. (2004) Networks, fields and organizations: micro-Dynamics, scale and cohesive embeddings. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory10: 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CMOT.0000032581.34436.7b
62.
WonglimpiyaratJ (2006) The dynamic economic engine at Silicon Valley and US Government programmes in financing innovations. Technovation 1081–1089. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.09.005
63.
ZiakisCVlachopoulouMPetridisK (2022) Start-up ecosystem (StUpEco): a conceptual framework and empirical research. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity8(1): 35. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010035
