L’ancrage territorial des SATT: Paradoxe entre valeur micro-économique et valeur territoriale perçues

• Autores: Sarah Serval, Laura Kreiling, Ahmed Bounfour
• Localización: Revue française de gestion, ISSN 0338-4551, ISSN-e 1777-5663, Vol. 47, Nº. 297, 2021, págs. 53-70
• Idioma: francés
• DOI: 10.3166/rfg.2021.00530
• Títulos paralelos:
  • The territorial anchoring of the Technology Transfer Acceleration Companies (SATT): The paradox between perceived microeconomic value and territorial value
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen
  • English

    Based on the case study of a successful Technology Transfer Acceleration Company (SATT), the paper aims to highlight the paradoxical tension between perceived microeconomic value and territorial value and how it is managed. The research results show that a learning process allowed for the implementation of a logic that combines the paradoxical organizational practices of differentiation and dialogue. They manifest themselves at a strategic, operational and individual level at the investigated SATT.

  • français

    À partir de l’étude1 de cas unique d’une société d’accélération de transfert de technologie (SATT) performante, l’article vise à mettre en évidence la tension paradoxale entre valeur micro-économique et valeur territoriale, perçues, et la manière dont celle-ci est managée. Les résultats témoignent d’un processus d’apprentissage, au sein de la SATT investiguée, permettant la mise en œuvre d’une logique de combinaison alliant des pratiques organisationnelles paradoxales de différenciation et de dialogue qui se manifestent à un niveau stratégique, opérationnel et individuel.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Agogue M., Berthet E., Fredberg T., Le Masson P., Segrestin B., Stoetzel M., Wiener M. et Ystrom A. (2017). “Explicating the role of innovation...
  • Ambos T.C., Makela K., Birkinshaw J. et D’este P. (2008). “When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research...
  • Battilana J. et Dorado S. (2010). “Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations”, Academy...
  • Birkinshaw J. et Gupta K. (2013). “Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies”, Academy...
  • Bounfour A. et Edvinssson L. (Eds) (2005). Intellectual Capital for Communities, Nations, Regions and Cities, Elsevier Butterworh-Heinemann,...
  • Bozeman B. (2000). “Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory”, Research Policy, vol. 29, no 4, p. 627‐655. [CrossRef]...
  • Bozeman B., Rimes H. et Youtie J. (2015). “The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness...
  • Cameron K. et Quinn R. (1988). “Organizational paradox and transformation”, Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization...
  • Cervantes M. et Meissner D. (2014). “Commercialising public research under the open innovation model: New trends”, Foresight-Russia, vol....
  • Clegg S.R., Vieira Da Cunha J., Pina E. et Cunha M. (2002). “Management paradoxes: A relational view”, Human Relations, vol. 55, no 5, p....
  • Fortier I. et Emery Y. (2012). “L’ethos public en tant que processus social dynamique”, Pyramides, vol. 22, no 2, p. 83‐114. [Google Scholar]
  • Gibson C.B. et Birkinshaw J. (2004). “The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity”, Academy of Management...
  • Gioia D.A., Corley K.G. et Hamilton A.L. (2013). “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology”, Organizational...
  • Hernandez S. (2008). « Paradoxes et management stratégique des territoires : étude comparée de métropoles européennes », Vie sciences de l’entreprise,...
  • Holzmann T., Sailer K., Galbraith B. et Katzy B.R. (2014). “Matchmaking for open innovation-theoretical perspectives based on interaction,...
  • Huyghe A., Knockaert M., Wright M. et Piva E. (2014). “Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: The case...
  • Josserand E. et Perret V. (2003). « Pratiques organisationnelles du paradoxe », Le paradoxe : penser et gérer autrement les organisations,...
  • Kreiling L. et Bounfour A. (2019). “A practice-based maturity model for holistic TTO performance management: Development and initial use”,...
  • Kreiling L. et Scanlan J. (2020). “A European clustering study with knowledge transfer office DNA”, International Journal of Intellectual...
  • Kreiling L., Serval S., Peres R. et Bounfour A. (2020). “University technology transfer organizations: Roles adopted in response to their...
  • Lewis M.W. (2000). “Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide”, Academy of Management Review, no 25, p. 760‐776. [CrossRef] [Google...
  • Lewis M.W. et Smith W.K. (2014). “Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope”, The Journal of Applied...
  • Matt M. et Schaeffer V. (2015). « Le soutien à l’entrepreneuriat académique dans le modèle d’université hub », Innovations, no 48, p. 13‐39....
  • Miles M.B. et Huberman M. (2003). Analyse des données qualitative, 2e édition, De Boeck & Larcier. [Google Scholar]
  • Poole M.S. et Van De Ven A.H. (1989). “Using paradox to build management and organization theories”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 14,...
  • Rapport de la Cour des comptes (2018). « Les outils du PIA consacrés à la valorisation de la recherche publique », La Documentation française....
  • Rayner J., Williams H., Lawton A. et Allinson C.W. (2010). “Public service ethos: Developing a generic measure”, Journal of Public Administration...
  • Roxas S.A., Piroli G. et Sorrentino M. (2011). “Efficiency and evaluation analysis of a network of technology transfer brokers”, Technology...
  • Schoen A., de la Potterie B.V.P. et Henkel J. (2014). “Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes”, The Journal of...
  • Serval S. (2018). L’attractivité territoriale à l’épreuve du temps, Paris, L’Harmattan. [Google Scholar]
  • Siegel D.S., Waldman D. et Link A. (2003). “Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology...
  • Smith W.K. et Lewis M.W. (2011). “Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrum model of organizing”, Academy of Management Review, vol....
  • Smith W.K. (2015). “Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes”, Academy of Management Journal, vol....
  • Svenningsen-Berthélem V., Boxenbaum E. et Ravasi D. (2018). “Individual responses to multiple logics in hybrid organizing: The role of structural...
  • Tushman M.L. et O’Reilly III C.A. (1996). “Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change”, first published July...
  • Weckowska D.M. (2015). “Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization...
  • Yin R.K. (2003). Case Study Research, Design and Methods-Third Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]