Bröchner, J (2013) Construction patents and university-industry research interaction: An analysis of Nordic region data. Construction Innovation, 13(4), pp. 410-423. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose - In the context of university-industry interaction, little is known about construction patents. The purpose of this paper is to explore this aspect of construction innovation systems. Design/methodology/approach - After a review of studies of academic interaction with the construction sector, applications for construction patents in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden for 2006-2010 were analysed. References to academic publications in US patent applications in three relevant classes were identified. Findings - References to university interaction occur in construction patents, but only seldom and not for mechanical devices. Country differences in patent legislation, such as legal protection for utility models and concerning university ownership of patents, have little effect on construction patenting. Research limitations/implications - Further analyses of construction-specific relations between types of university-industry interaction are needed, as well as empirical studies of other regions. Practical implications - Patterns found here should offer useful insights for firms designing their intellectual property strategies. Social implications - The findings suggest that government innovation strategies and internal university policies should recognise the wide variety of interactions with construction sector firms. Policies reflecting innovation systems in industries that depend highly on intellectual property rights should be reconsidered. Originality/value - This analysis has exploited recent advances in searchable patent databases in several countries.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; innovation; intellectual property; universities |
| Index terms: | Finland, database, Sweden, innovation strategy, construction industry, interaction, empirical study, ownership, strategy, Norway, construction patents, legislation, construction sector, Denmark, construction innovation, publication, innovation system, methodology, intellectual property |
| Subjects: | data management, building construction, industry analysis, behavioral psychology, management, research methods, economics, Geography, legal systems, research dissemination and communication, business, intellectual property |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here