Key Success Factors for Research Institutions in Research

Commercialization and Industry Linkages:

Outcomes of a German/Australian cooperative project

Prof. Dr. Thomas Baaken

Muenster University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Department of Business Administration, Corrensstrasse 25, 48149 Münster

Carolin Plewa
The University of Adelaide, Australia
School of Commerce, 233 North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5005

Abstract: Today’s research business is characterized by cuts in government funding

and intense international competition, which lead to an increasing pressure for
research institutions to find new ways of generating income. Hence, research
commercialization and the development of linkages between companies and
research institutions has become a major issue. However, commercialization practice
and the existence of linkages are still insubstantial.

This paper includes some key outcomes of the project ‘Science Marketing’, namely
the analysis of two mirror surveys of those companies that assigned research tasks
to universities and outlined their expectations as research customers; one survey
conducted in Europe, one in Australia.

The paper describes superior performance factors of German and Australian

universities, generated by analyzing the research institutions’ customers’
expectations and perceived performance levels. First, differences in expectation and
perceived performance levels of single relevant performance components will be
discussed, followed by a comparison of German and Australian results. This
comparison will lead to a specification of the key success components of research
institutions. The paper concludes with some strategies and outlines successful
instruments on how research institutions performing well in the key components to
realize successful research commercialization and linkages to industry.

Keywords: science marketing, research commercialization, research marketing,

success factors, technology transfer

1
Introduction

Today’s marketplace experiences an intensification and rapid change of competition

in the market (Bower 1993; Aijo 1996; Cartwright 2000; Siguaw, Bakes et al. 2003),
fostered by factors such as globalization (Gummesson 2002; Palmer 2002), the
maturing of domestic markets (Siguaw, Simpson et al. 1998) and rapid technological
change (Palmer 2002; Santoro and Chakrabarti 2002). These characteristics of
today’s marketplace have implications for the market players.

First, companies confront an intense pressure to advance knowledge and develop

new products, technologies and processes to be successful in today’s marketplace
(Gupta and Wilemon 1996; Santoro and Chakrabarti 2002). Rennie (Engineering
1995) stated that “companies cannot become world-class innovators on their own.
For continuous innovation, they must develop linkages with other firms and
institutions that will spur them on to better performance” (p. 5). Benefits for
companies from innovation-oriented collaborations have also been emphasized by
other authors, including advantages such as a significant higher number of patents
(George, Zahra et al. 2002), lower R&D spending per employee (George, Zahra et al.
2002) and increased access to knowledge (Caloghirou, Vonortas et al. 2000),
research (Lee 2000), facilities (Santoro and Chakrabarti 2002), research directions
and trends (Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia 2003).

Second, as a result of increased national and international competition and cuts in

government funding, research institutions are urged more and more to find new ways
to generate income (Montgomery 1992; Australian Research Council 2001; Baaken
2003). At universities, the potential funding from student fees is restricted. Hence, the
commercialization of research has become a topic of major interest in the university
environment, as it offers an opportunity for increased funding. In addition, the
commercialization of research applied to industry problems offers the test of theories
(George, Zahra et al. 2002), opportunities for knowledge creation (Cyert and
Goodman 1997; Lee and Song 2001), the enhancement of career opportunities
(Santoro and Chakrabarti 2002) and improved facilities (Harmann 2001)

Third, governments have an interest in promoting successful relationships between

research institutions and industries, which can be explained by the fact that
knowledge based on research is seen as key factor to the future success of society
and the economy. Research enables the innovations that have become key drivers of
economic performance (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
2001). Hence, governments of many developed countries make major efforts to
encourage university-industry research partnerships to stimulate the nation’s
participation and competitiveness in a global environment (Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development 2002).

Based on these market conditions, company and governmental research tasks are
increasingly outsourced to specialized research institutions, leading to a raised
relevance, number and intensity of contact between these institutions (Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development 2002), and the government. In
accordance to this increase, literature in this area multiplies rapidly with a large
amount of research focusing on technology transfer as well as research
commercialization and management on the university side (Montgomery 1992; Graff,

2
Heiman et al. 2002; Steenhuis and De Bruijn 2002) as well as innovation and
research and development (R&D thereafter) management on the industry side
(Desphandé, Farley et al. 1993; Griffin and Hauser 1996; Gupta, Wilemon et al.
2000).

Despite the increasing outsourcing of research tasks and interest in the area of
research commercialization and cooperation, so far, most authors approach the area
from a financial or operational view. Few authors considered the use of marketing
principles for the commercialization of research (Macure and Davies 2000; Baaken
2001; Hoppe 2001; Baaken 2003). This is surprising, as marketing is an established
field applied for all product and service markets around the world. During recent
times the term ‘marketing’ and some marketing ideas start to appear in the research
commercialization area (Macure and Davies 2000; Hoppe 2001; Baaken 2003).
Howard (Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia 2003) mentioned that the
increased outsourcing and commercialization of research involves a shift for
universities from a science to a user focus. And this shift “requires an increased
emphasis on marketing – through networks, application and user focus” (Knowledge
Commercialisation Australasia 2003, p. ii).

In the following section, the application of marketing to research commercialization

will be discussed, including an introduction to the project ‘Science Marketing’ and the
survey conducted for this study. Then, the methodology of this study will be
described, followed by a discussion of results. The paper will conclude with a brief
summary and further research areas.

Science Marketing

Science Marketing Research Centre

The term “science marketing” labels the marketing of science, one part of the
marketing activities to be undertaken by universities and other research institutions.
Science marketing aims at the usage of marketing principles for the area of science,
aiming at a successful commercialization of research competencies, capacities and
results from a research institution to its research customers (Baaken 2003).

The key marketing principle is a customer and user focus. Marketing research is
about meeting a market demand and offering value to customers (Baaken 2003).
Such value creation determines a market as the focal action point and an orientation
towards customer demand. First, a marketing approach to research
commercialization requires the understanding of the market in which exchange
between institutions takes place. Based on the potential products and services a
research institution has to offer, a market incorporates those companies and
government departments willing to pay for these products or services. Second,
research institutions are required to orientate their actions towards customer
demand. To do so, the identified market has to serve as the starting point for every
activity. That means, current and potential customers are the center of action and the
customer and their needs and wants have foremost priority.

3
Based on the positive experiences gained from applying marketing principles to
research commercialization at the Muenster University of Applied Sciences,
Germany, a Research Centre ‘Science Marketing’ was stablished. It’s aim is to
examine whether, how, in which way and based on which criteria companies assign
research and development activities to external entities, and to assess the
performance and experience they had with research commissions and projects. In
addition, the project aims at using these assessments of research customers to take
a look at the research providers to develop best practice models and new strategies
and tools to allow universities and other research institutions to benefit from the
introduction of marketing to research commercialization.

The Customer Survey

This paper details the results of a mirror survey of research customers in Germany
and Australia, which was based on the following three key objectives.

First, the survey was aimed at revealing the key success components of research
institutions from a customer perspective. Key success components are identified by
setting apart those requests made of research providers most relevant from a
customer point of view. Second, the survey was aimed at determining satisfaction
levels of research customers in Australia and Germany regarding these relevant
requests or key success factors. Third, a comparison of the German and Australian
results was aimed at identifying those areas in which each country performs
significantly better than the other.

These three objectives have been converted into three analysis steps for this paper.
This conversion is believed to disentangle the research objectives and offer a
straightforward structure for the discussion of results.
1. Reveal the most relevant requests made of research providers to clarify key
success components for research institutions.
2. Determine customer satisfaction levels by comparing expectations and perceived
performance levels for the relevant requests.
3. Compare German and Australian Results and identify those areas in which each
Australia performs significantly better than Germany and vice versa.

Methodology

Previously, customer focus has been described as the central key to a marketing
approach, including the recognition of the customer being the starting point for each
activity. Based on this fact, a survey of the customers of research institutions was
conducted. The sample for this research was built of experienced research clients in
Germany and Australia. The experience in dealing with research clients was seen as
required to achieve high-quality results, as it ensures the expertise of interviewees in
the area of this study. The fit of interviewees to the sample was reflected in two
prerequisites, both tested before starting each interview. First, it was ensured that all
interviewed companies currently are or previously have been in contact with a
research organization. Second, individual respondents at each company either
initiate and/or decide on the assignment of research tasks to external research
institutions. In Germany and Australia, 82% and 86% of the interviewees respectively

4
were engaged in both initiation and decision-making, illustrating their high experience
as a research client and validity of their responses.

The survey was conducted in form of a mirror survey in Germany and Australia and
was performed in two steps. First, a series of 105 telephone interviews was
conducted in Germany between November 2002 and January 2003 using a
structured questionnaire. To achieve the number of 105 interviews, 232 addresses
were processed, leading to a response rate of 45%. The target group consisted only
of companies experienced with research cooperation with Universities. Following this
first step, the questionnaire was translated into English and pre-tested in Australia to
ensure the correctness and suitability of the translation for the Australian sample.
Following the adjustment of the questionnaire after the pre-test, 100 interviews were
conducted in Australia between April and June 2003. Based on 386 addresses
processed, a response rate of 26% was achieved. Institutions from different
industries as well as institution sizes can be found in the accomplished interview
samples, reflecting each country’s market conditions.

As described in the previous section, one research objective was to determine the
respondent’s satisfaction with a range of requests made of research providers.
Satisfaction will be analyzed by assessing differences in expectations and perceived
performance levels regarding each request. Based on the disconfirmation paradigm
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml et al. 1988), which has been accepted and used by a range
of scholars (Eggert and Ulaga 2002; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner et al. 2002),
satisfaction is a feeling based on a comparison between expectations and perceived
performance of a product or service. Therefore, respondents were asked to indicate
the relevance and perceived performance level of research providers regarding each
request included in the survey. 34 requests were asked during the interviews,
grouped into four clusters, namely (1) general, (2) information, transparency and
contact, (3) practical outcomes and customer orientation, as well as (4) management
and administration. Respondents were asked to rate each request on a scale from 1
to 6, with 1 being very important or good performance and 6 being most unimportant
or very poor performance.

Results

The three analysis steps for this survey were outlined in the section ‘The customer
survey’, namely (1) to reveal the most relevant requests made of research providers
to clarify key success components for research institutions, (2) to determine customer
satisfaction levels by comparing expectations and perceived performance levels for
the relevant requests and (3) to compare German and Australian Results and identify
those areas in which each Australia performs significantly better than Germany and
vice versa.

Requests made of research providers by their customers were included in the survey,
each rated by the respondents regarding their relevance and perceived performance.
Due to the large number of requests included in the questionnaire and the conduction
of the survey in two countries, the discussion of all findings would exceed the limits of
this paper. Therefore, the discussion of results will be brief and outcomes for the

5
second step will only be discussed regarding the constructs grouped under ‘general
requests’.

Step One

The first step was to determine the key success components for research institutions
as perceived by their customers. To determine these most relevant factors, the
means of the responses regarding the relevance of each request were calculated.
Then, a comparison of means was performed for each variable group, leading to a
ranking of requests regarding their relevance from the customers’ perspective. Table
1 shows those requests that are most relevant for customers when assigning tasks to
external research institutions. From a marketing point of view, these requests reflect
the key factors of customer demand. Hence, trying to meet customer demand and
creating customer value requires the recognition and application of these requests as
the starting point for every activity of the research provider. An interesting finding is
the similarity of success factors in Germany and Australia.

Table 1. Key Success Components

GERMANY (D) µ S² AUSTRALIA (AUS) µ S²

Outcome 1.24 0.26 Competence 1.21 0.27

Competence 1.35 0.25 Outcome 1.31 0.40
Good cost/performance ratio 1.59 0.54 Good cost/performance ratio 1.67 0.61

Intelligible presentation of results 1.57 0.51 Intelligible presentation of results 1.31 0.30
Responsiveness/understanding 1.68 0.53 Personal communication 1.49 0.54
Fast, easy accessibility 1.71 0.62 Responsiveness/understanding 1.56 0.35

Focus on resolving problems 1.36 0.33 Knowledge transfer 1.45 0.59

Focus on company interests 1.47 0,47 Focus on resolving problems 1.54 0.48
Focus on company benefits 1.47 0.57 Focus on company benefits 1.81 0.90

Keep Promises 1.34 0.30 Keep Promises 1.43 0.45

Adherence to deadlines 1.40 0.34 Adherence to budget 1.59 0.71
Adherence to budget 1.47 0.41 Adherence to deadlines 1.67 0.61
Source: developed for this research
µ = mean, S² = variance

Step Two

Based on the determination of the most relevant success factors in step one, step
two will determine customer satisfaction levels by comparing expectations and
perceived performance levels for these relevant requests. Figure 1 shows a
comparison of the relevance and performance curves for Germany (D) and Australia
(AUS) for the first group of requests, namely ‘general requests’. The curves show the
means of each request regarding the customers’ relevance and performance
evaluation in both countries. The German relevance curve was used to rank the
requests.

Figure 1 clearly indicates a gap between the relevance and performance of research
institutions as perceived by their customers. As satisfaction is a feeling based on a

6
comparison of expectations, here shown as the relevance curve, and perceived
performance, the gap between both curves indicates non-satisfactory performance of
research institutions regarding the given requests. Such dissatisfaction is especially
critical regarding the most relevant success factors, detailed in table 1, as these are
the key factors on which research customers assigns tasks to external research
providers. These outcomes reveal the relevance of this research and indicate a need
of research providers increase customer satisfaction to successfully operate in
today’s marketplace. As also seen regarding key success factors in table 1, a
similarity between the German and Australian results can be seen in both relevance
and performance curve, especially regarding the most relevant success factors.

1 1.21
1.31 Very important
1.24 1.55
1.35
1.78
1.92 1.93 1.98 1.80
1.67
1.78
2 2.02 1.81 2.02
2.22
1.95 2.43
1.95
2.63 2.42
2.49
2.59 2.57
2.58
2.75 2.70 2.95 2.83
3
2.86 3.17
D Relevance 3.04 3.01
3.11
D Performance 3.44
3.56
AUS Relevance
AUS Performance Less important
4
s

re
tio
e

k
r.
e

ce

im

or
nc
om

tu
ce
ra

w
ur

t
te

di
an
tc

of
it

so

of
pe

en
ou

ef

rm

re
s
m

re

xp
en

re

it u
fo
co

it u
/b

le
er

c.

nd
st

nd

al
/p

an

pe
co

er
pe
st

fi n

ov
ex
co
od

ex
of
go

od

p.
go

ex

Source: developed for this research

Figure 1. General requests. Relevance and Perceived Performance

Step Three

Analysis step three of this study compares German and Australian results to identify
those areas in which Australian research institutions perform significantly better than
German institutions as perceived by their customers and vice versa. This
identification of best practice areas will be based on a comparison of (1) performance
levels and (2) customer satisfaction levels.

A comparison of performance levels reveals those areas in which German and

Australian research institutions perform higher than the respective other country as
perceived by their customers, indicated in figure 2 by means of circles. In addition to
this comparison of performance, the satisfaction levels of both countries were

7
 compared for each request. Customer satisfaction is a key criterion for a successful
application of marketing principles to research commercialization. It is thus used to
substantiate results of the comparison of performance levels for the identification of
best practice areas in this study. As described in step two, satisfaction can be
described as the difference between expectations and perceived performance.
Figure 2 illustrates this difference by means of lines drawn between the relevance
and perceived performance curves. Satisfaction levels were generated for every
request and were then compared to identify best practice areas for each country.

1
Very important
1.43 1.47
1.34 1.67
1.40 1.66 1.74
1.59
2.13
2
2.34 2.30 2.35 2.27
2.15 2.29
2.12 2.64
2.56 2.62 2.53 2.51
2.58
2.63
2.49 2.44
2.54 2.72
2.63 2.64 2.77 2.77
2.72 2.83 2.68 2.88
2.79
3 3.03
3.16 3.15
D Relevance 3.05
D Performance
AUS Relevance
AUS Performance Less important
4

ds
.
es

.
es

pe

ch
ls
es

et

gt

or
sa
dg

tim

un
.m
is

ta
lin

oa

th
om

po

au
bu

lf
d

pr
ad

oj
g

re

ro

na
ap
pr

pr
in
de

ng
to

ng

.p
nn

tio
ep

ni
ce
to

en
di

oj

ar
ru

di

ai
ke

en
e

oi

rr

pr

in

ad

tg
nc

u
av

pl
or
r

ar
he

nc

or
g
re

ci
sh

ul

in
ad

co

pp
he

is
od

at
rd
ad

su
lit
m

te

ci
in

fa

Source: developed for this research

Figure 2. Comparison of German and Australian Performance Results

In addition, this analysis concentrated on those aspects reported by surveyed

customers as being very important. This focus on the key areas of customer demand
has been discussed in step one as the most relevant factors for research institutions
to focus on. Hence, the analysis of performance in this step will concentrate on those
constructs. Both, comparisons of both performance and satisfaction levels will be
given in table 2.

Considering the performance and satisfaction levels of all requests included in the
survey, the performance of Australian research institutions was rated significantly
better by their customers than their German counterparts in the following aspects:
participation in task selection and definition, inter-disciplinary approach, knowledge
transfer, adherence to budget and the intelligible presentation of R&D results. In
comparison, German institutions were perceived as significantly better than
Australian institutions regarding the following requests: adherence to deadlines,
personal communication, focus on company interest and avoiding red tape. Table 2

8
lists the identified requests together with the respective means of performance and
satisfaction level (∆ pr) in each country.

Table 2. Identification of Best Practice

Performance ∆ pr
AUS D AUS D
inter-disciplinary approach 2.29 3.05 0.02 0.52
participation in task selection and definition 2.14 2.43 0.20 0.40
knowledge transfer 2.09 2.51 0.64 0.80
adherence to budget 2.30 2.63 0.71 1.16
intelligible presentation of R&D results 2.20 2.40 0.89 0.83

Performance ∆ pr
D AUS D AUS
adherence to deadlines 2.34 3.16 0.94 1.49
personal communication 2.12 2.37 0.38 0.88
focus on company interest 2.54 2.76 1.07 0.45
avoiding red tape 2.64 2.83 0.9 0.71
Source: developed for this research
∆ pr : performance - relevance

The requests ‘inter-disciplinary approach’ and ‘adherence to deadlines’ present the

most distinct best practice areas in Australia and Germany respectively. As detailed
in table 2, the performance of Australian research institutions was rated 0.76 points
higher than the performance of their German counterparts for the request ‘inter-
disciplinary approach’. In addition, in comparison to Germany, Australian research
customers showed a very high satisfaction level, as the perceived performance
almost meets customers’ expectations (∆ pr = 0.2). Regarding the request
‘adherence to deadlines’, German institutions achieved a 0.82 points higher
performance level than their Australian counterparts. While the satisfaction level of
German customers for this request requires improvement (∆ pr = 0.94), it is still
significantly higher than the satisfaction level of Australian research customers.

Conclusion and Further Research

Today’s research market is characterized by an intensifying assignment of research

activities to research institutions by companies and government departments. This
paper presented a marketing view on research commercialization and detailed some
findings of a mirror survey of research customers in Germany and Australia,
conducted by the ‘Science Marketing’ team. After an introduction and a brief
discussion of the ‘science marketing’ area, the methodology of the survey was
outlined.

Following, three analysis steps and respective results were given. First, the requests
most relevant for research customers when assigning research tasks to external
research institutions were extracted from the data. As detailed in the discussion,
these factors are crucial to the successful operation of research institutions and
should be seen as the starting point for every activity of a research provider.

9
Second, a low satisfaction level was seen, indicated by a constant gap between the
expected relevance curve and the perceived performance curve (see figure 1). In
general, three marketing strategies can be taken to decrease the illustrated gap
between relevance and performance and thus to increase customer satisfaction.
First, given that the assessment shown in figure 1 accurately reflects the current
situation, research institutions have to improve their performance in the relevant
areas. Second, if the performance of research institutions is better than the
customers’ perception of performance detailed here, research institutions have to
communication the accurate performance level to their customers. Third, if the
relevance curve is overstated, customer expectations have to be managed and
decreased to a manageable degree.

Third, a comparison of German and Australian performance levels lead to the

identification of those areas in which one country’s research institutions perform
better than in the other country as perceived by their customers. These high
performance areas will create the base for the second stage of the project ‘Science
Marketing’, during which best practice examples will be identified for each area.
These best practice studies in Germany and Australia will lead to the development of
strategies and tools to improve performance in the respective other country as well
as other countries wishing to make progress in these areas.

Up to this date, very sparse research is available on a marketing approach to

research commercialization. While these findings and the project ‘Science Marketing’
are one step into this direction, more and more extensive research is required. Also,
further research may duplicate this survey in other countries that experience a rate of
contacts and linkages between research providers and customers.

10
References

Aijo, T. S. (1996). "The Theoretical and Philosophical Underpinnings of Relationship

Marketing: Environmental Factors Behind the Changing Marketing Paradigm."
European Journal of Marketing 30(2): 8-18.
Australian Research Council (2001). Mapping the Nature and Extent of Business-University
Interaction in Australia. Canberra, Australian Research Council: 71.
Baaken, T. (2001). SMILE Strategisches Marketing in Lehre und Entwicklung. Die
Fachhochschule im Wettbewerb der Hochschulsysteme. U. Kamenz. Dortmund. 2: 73-
91.
Baaken, T. (2003). Science Marketing. Applied Marketing: Anwendungsorientierte
Marketingwissenschaft der deutschen Fachhochschulen. U. Kamenz. Berlin, Springer-
Verlag: 1051-1066.
Baaken, T. (2003). Strategien und Instrumente im Forschungsmarketing. Marketing und
Kommunikation von Forschung. B. Mager and H. Hamacher. Koeln, Research Goes
Public: 76-81.
Bower, J. (1993). "Successful Joint Ventures in Science Parks." Long Range Planning 26(6):
114-120.
Caloghirou, Y., N. S. Vonortas, et al. (2000). University-Industry Cooperation in Research &
Development. From Organisational Issues in University Technology Transfer,
Indianapolis.
Cartwright, R. (2000). Mastering Customer Relations. London, Macmillan.
Cyert, R. M. and P. S. Goodman (1997). "Creating Effective University-Industry Alliances:
An Organizational Learning Perspective." Organizational Dynamics 26(4): 45-57.
Desphandé, R., J. U. Farley, et al. (1993). "Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and
Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrat Analysis." Journal of Marketing 57: 23-
27.
Eggert, A. and W. Ulaga (2002). "Customer Perceived Value: A Substitute for Satisfaction in
Business Markets?" Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 17(2/3): 107-118.
Engineering, T. W. C. f. A. (1995). Harness Innovation for Business Success: A Handbook,
The Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering, The University of Resarch.
George, G., S. A. Zahra, et al. (2002). "The Effects of Business-University Alliances on
Innovative Output and Financial Performance: A Study of Publicly Traded
Biotechnology Companies." Journal of Business Venturing 17: 577-609.
Graff, G., A. Heiman, et al. (2002). "University Research and Offices of Technology
Transfer." California Management Review 45(1): 88-115.
Griffin, A. and J. R. Hauser (1996). "Integrating R&D and Marketing: A Review and
Analysis of the Literature." Journal of Product and Innovation Management 13: 191-
215.
Gummesson, E. (2002). "Relationship Marketing in the New Economy." Journal of
Relationship Marketing 1(1): 37-58.
Gupta, A. K. and D. Wilemon (1996). "Changing Patterns in Industrial R&D Management."
Journal of Product and Innovation Management 13: 497-511.
Gupta, A. K., D. Wilemon, et al. (2000). "Excelling in R&D." Research Technology
Management 43(3): 52-58.
Harmann, G. (2001). "University-Industry Research Partnerships in Australia: Extent, benefits
and risks." Higher Education Research & Development 20(3): 245-264.
Hennig-Thurau, T., K. P. Gwinner, et al. (2002). "Understanding Relationship Marketing
Outcomes: An Integration of Relational Benefits and Relationship Quality." Journal of
Service Research 4(3): 230-247.

11
Hoppe, U. (2001). Marketingkonzeption für Technologie-Orientierte Öffentliche
Forschungseinrichtungen: Ein Integraler Ansatz zur Gestaltung der Außenbeziehungen
von Außeruniversitären Forschungseinrichtungen. Berlin
Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia (2003). Forum and Fair of Ideas:
Commercialisation Discussion Paper. Brisbane, Knowledge Commercialisation
Australasia
Lee, S.-Y. and X.-Y. Song (2001). "Hypothesis Testing and Model Comparison in Two-level
Structural Equation Models." Multivariate Behavioral Research 36(4): 639-655.
Lee, Y. S. (2000). "The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An
Empirical Assessment." Journal of Technology Transfer 25: 111-133.
Macure, J. and B. Davies (2000). Marketing Scientific Results & Services: A Toolkit. Avalon,
NSW, Calibre Communications.
Montgomery, A. J. (1992). Technology Transfer from Universities: Elements of Success.
Innovative Models for University Research. C. R. Haden and J. R. Brink, Elsevier
Science Publishers.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001). Science, Technology and
Industry Outlook. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002). OECD Science,
Technology and Industry Outlook 2002. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
Palmer, A. (2002). "The Evolution of an Idea: An Environmental Explanation of Relationship
Marketing." Journal of Relationship Marketing 1(1): 79-94.
Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, et al. (1988). "SERVQUAL: Multiple-Item Scale for
Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality." Journal of Retailing 64(1): 12-
40.
Santoro, M. and A. K. Chakrabarti (2002). "Firm Size and Technology Centrality in Industry-
University Interactions." Research Policy 31: 1163-1180.
Siguaw, J. A., T. L. Bakes, et al. (2003). "Preliminary Evidence on the Composition of
Relational Exchange and its Outcomes: The Distributor Perspective." Journal of
Business Research 56: 311-322.
Siguaw, J. A., P. M. Simpson, et al. (1998). "Effects of Supplier Market Orientation on
Distributor Market Orientation and the Channel Relationship: The Distributor
Perspective." Journal of Marketing 62: 99-111.
Steenhuis, H.-J. and E. J. De Bruijn (2002). "Technology Transfer and Learning." Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management 14(1): 57-66.

12
Additional Information

(i) A short title (less than 50 characters and spaces) for use in running headlines:

Key Success Factors in Research Commercialization

(ii) The name and address to which communications should be sent:

Prof. Dr. Thomas Baaken

Muenster University of Applied Sciences
Department of Business Administration
Corrensstrasse 25
48149 Münster
Germany
Baaken@fh-muenster.de

13