The 7 Things I Know About Cyber Security After 25 Years | April 2024
MET3 Model
1. Key Success Factors to Better Technology Transfer
Marseille, April, 2, 2012
MET3 Model
Dr. Athena Roumboutsos
Dpt. Shipping, Trade and Transport,
University of the Aegean
National Hellenic Research Foundation (& KINNO)
2. Scope
• Fully integrated TTT model for MED conditions:
– knowledge and people flows,
– evaluation & marketing of IP,
– operational and commercialisation alternatives, etc.
• Policy interventions & recommendations
– Regulatory,
– Research & technology-related
– Innovation-related policies
• Transfer of MET3 results
3. Building Blocks
MET3 Tools
Contextual
Factors
Stakeholders/
Actors
4. TT Stakeholders & Actors
• Technology Producers [Universities/ Research Institutes & Centers
(Public) - Corporate R&D Laboratories/ Centers (Private)]
• Technology Consumers [Manufacturers, Service Providers etc.
(Private) - Government Agencies/ Companies etc. (Public)]
• Product Producers
• Product Consumers [Primary (end users) & Secondary (service
providers)]
• Brokers [Government Agencies/ Bodies (Public) - TT Intermediaries,
VCs, Angel Investors etc. (Private)]
• Standardisation Bodies
• Funders/ Seed Capital etc. (Private & Public)
Source: Bauer et al.
2010)
5. Contextual Factors
• Systems of Innovation Approach – Evolution Theory –
Systemic Problems in spread of Innovation:
– Infrastructural failures
– Transition failures
– Lock-in/path dependency failures
– Hard institutional failure
– Soft institutional failure
– Strong network failures
– Weak network failures
– Capabilities’ failure
• Market Demand & Competition
• System Boundaries
6. Systems of Innovation Framework
NATIONAL CONTEXT
Actors TEC. TEC. PROD. PROD. BROKERS FUNDS
Contextual Factors PROD. CONS. PROD. CONSUM
INFRASTRUCTURE
TRANSITION
HARD
INSTITUTIONS
SOFT
INSTITUTIONS
STRONG
NETWORKS
WEAK NETWORKS
CAPABILITIES
MARKET
7. Key References
• Arrow K. (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for
invention. In: Nelson R, editor. The rate and direction of inventive activity.
Princeton University Press; 609-25.
• Edquist, C., Hommen, L., Johnson, B., Lemola, T., Malerba, F., Reiss, T.,
Smith, K., (1998) The ISE Policy Statement—the Innovation Policy
Implications of the ‘Innovations Systems and European Integration’.
Research project funded by the TSER programme (DG XII). Linkooping
University, Linkooping.
• Woolthuis, R. K., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005) A System Failure
Framework for Innovation Policy Design. Technovation , 25, 609-619.
• Roumboutsos, A., Kapros, S., Lekakou, M. (2011) Motorways of the Sea in
the SE Mediterranean: innovation systems’ analysis of policy instruments,
ECONSHIP 2011, Chios, June 22-24, 2011
• “Innovation Processes in Surface Transport”, FP7,
TREN/FP7TR/234076”INNOSUTRA
8. TTT Model Approach
Technology Innovation
STAKEHOLDERS Characteristics
CONTEXTUAL
SYSTEM Assessment of
FACTORS
OF Market
INNOVATION Meso/Macro Level
(ORIGIN)
STAKEHOLDERS
TT Strategies
CONTEXTUAL
SYSTEM
FACTORS
OF
TT Process INNOVATION
Efficiency (DESTINATION)
9. TT Tools Used in MET3
C3.2 – Description of Region Assessment of
Market
C3.3 – Description of Sector Meso/Macro Level
C3.5 – TBOs Technology Innovation
Characteristics
C4.1 – Exploitation plans & workshops (EPW) STAKEHOLDERS
C4.2 – Portal (P) SYSTEM
CONTEXTUAL
OF
C4.3 – TT Missions (TT)
FACTORS
INNOVATION
(ORIGIN)
C4.4 – Capacity building events (CBE) &
(DESTINATION)
10. Systems of Innovation Framework
NATIONAL CONTEXT
Actors TEC. TEC. PROD. PROD. BROKERS FUNDS
Contextual Factors PROD. CONS. PROD. CONSUM
INFRASTRUCTURE EPW EPW EPW EPW EPW EPW
TRANSITION P P P P P P
HARD EPW EPW EPW EPW EPW EPW
INSTITUTIONS
SOFT P P P P P P
INSTITUTIONS
STRONG & WEAK TT TT TT TT TT TT
NETWORKS
CAPABILITIES P / CBE P / CBE P / CBE P / CBE P / CBE P / CBE
MARKET EPW EPW EPW EPW EPW EPW
