Critical success factors in the technology commercialization process: A comparative case study of international licensing alliances among small and medium-sized enterprises

Lysaridis, Ioannis; Chountalas, Panos T.; Magoutas, Anastasios I. Article Critical success factors in the technology commercialization process: A comparative case study of international licensing alliances among small and medium-sized enterprises Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Lysaridis, Ioannis; Chountalas, Panos T.; Magoutas, Anastasios I. (2024) : Critical success factors in the technology commercialization process: A comparative case study of international licensing alliances among small and medium-sized enterprises, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 1, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010009 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320832 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Lysaridis, Ioannis, Panos T. Chountalas, and Anastasios I. Magoutas. 2024. Critical Success Factors in the Technology Commercialization Process: A Comparative Case Study of International Licensing Alliances among Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Administrative Sciences 14: 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci14010009 Received: 15 November 2023 Revised: 24 December 2023 Accepted: 26 December 2023 Published: 29 December 2023 Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Critical Success Factors in the Technology Commercialization Process: A Comparative Case Study of International Licensing Alliances among Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Ioannis Lysaridis 1, Panos T. Chountalas 2and Anastasios I. Magoutas 3,* 1School of Social Sciences, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patras, Greece; [email protected] 2Department of Business Administration, University of Piraeus, 18534 Pireas, Greece; [email protected] 3Department of Business Administration, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 10559 Athens, Greece *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: In contemporary academia and industry, the commercialization of technology through licensing has emerged as a prevalent strategy. This paradigmatic shift has prompted numerous industrial firms to intensify their focus on technology commercialization as a mechanism to optimize the returns on their research and development investments, while concurrently leveraging their comprehensive technology portfolios. However, despite growing interest in this area, there exists a conspicuous gap in scholarly literature exploring how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can effectively and efficiently capitalize on this opportunity in a global context. The objective of the present study is to fill this void by offering an in-depth analysis of the key determinants that contribute to the successful commercialization of technology via licensing. Employing a qualitative research methodology, this paper presents a comparative case study that explores four separate international licensing alliances, each formed between the same licensor, specializing in solar mounting system engineering, and four different licensees, all engaged in the production and marketing of this specialized technology. Data were meticulously gathered through a triangulated approach that incorporated interviews with both licensor and licensees, extensive desk research, and on-site observations. Our empirical findings reveal that the critical success factors identified in existing literature are not uniformly significant. Specifically, four elements—relational dynamics, cultural considerations, human capital, and resource allocation—emerged as pivotal in ensuring the successful implementation of technology commercialization strategies. By elucidating these nuanced factors, this study contributes to both academic discourse and practical applications, thereby serving as a valuable resource for SMEs aiming to navigate the complexities of technology commercialization in international settings. Keywords: technology; commercialization; licensing; open innovation; research and development; critical success factors; small and medium-sized enterprises 1. Introduction Historically, industrial and technological organizations have predominantly focused on leveraging their in-house technological expertise for internal product development, thereby securing a competitive edge in the market. This insular approach to innovation, commonly referred to as “product development,” has been the cornerstone of organizational strategies, often precluding the considerations of external technology transfer (Lichtenthaler 2011). However, the landscape has evolved significantly over the past two decades, driven by factors such as globalization, heightened market competition, constrained financial resources, and limited technical capabilities. This evolution has catalyzed a transition from a closed innovation model to a more open, collaborative paradigm, frequently facilitated Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010009 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 9 2 of 17 through licensing agreements (Ayerbe et al. 2022;Enkel et al. 2009;Tomita 2022). Licensing serves as a conduit for outbound open innovation (Kutvonen 2011;Kim et al. 2021), wherein the licensor grants a third party—the licensee—the rights to produce, modify, market, and sell a particular technology or product in return for predetermined compensation. This strategic maneuver allows organizations to fully exploit their technology portfolios (Rivette and Kline 2000). Notably, some organizations have even adopted licensing as their primary revenue stream, recognizing the intrinsic value of research and development (R&D) as an independent value proposition. This shift aligns with the assertion that “not all the smart people work for us” (Chesbrough 2006), emphasizing the need for organizations to forge synergistic relationships and partnerships, often with external entities, to maintain competitiveness and drive innovation. The existing academic research has thoroughly examined the role of licensing in technology commercialization and its critical success factors (Bigliardi and Galati 2016; Brown et al. 2022 ;Brunswicker and Ehrenmann 2013;Durst and Ståhle 2013;Lichtenthaler 2011;Min et al. 2022). However, Bigliardi and Galati (2016) identified a gap in understanding the specific barriers to adopting open innovation within small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Lee et al. (2010) underscored this by highlighting SMEs’ unique challenges in the innovation process, such as labor constraints, informational deficits, inadequate infrastructure, and financial limitations, proposing open innovation as a potential solution. Lichtenthaler (2011) concurred with this perspective, noting SMEs’ reliance on licensing in the absence of assets necessary for a product-based business. These insights reveal an underexplored area in the literature: the practicalities and challenges that SMEs face in effectively leveraging licensing for technology commercialization, especially in international contexts. This gap is particularly evident in the existing research and necessitates further investigation, as also suggested by Portuguez-Castro (2023). Consistent with the recommendations of seminal works by Bigliardi and Galati (2016) and Lichtenthaler (2011), and responding to Portuguez-Castro’s (2023) call for deeper investigation into the strategies and practices that SMEs employ to successfully implement open innovation, this study aims to identify the critical factors that lead to the successful commercialization of technology through licensing. In particular, this study is focused on pinpointing those elements that are vital for SMEs when they engage in licensing activities within global markets. This involves a detailed exploration into how SMEs can maximize the benefits of licensing to enhance their technology commercialization efforts. Key aspects under examination include identifying the strategic approaches that SMEs adopt in licensing, understanding how they navigate the complexities of international market dynamics through licensing agreements, and uncovering the specific practices that contribute to successful outcomes in such ventures. By isolating and analyzing these factors, the study contributes valuable insights into the effective use of licensing as a tool for technology commercialization, particularly one tailored to the needs and contexts of SMEs operating on a global stage. To this end, we conducted a rigorous comparative case study, examining four distinct international licensing alliances. We specifically examined the alliances between a single licensor, an expert in solar mounting system engineering, and four diverse licensees, all actively engaged in the production and marketing of this technology. It is crucial to emphasize that both the licensor and all licensees are classified as SMEs, ensuring the study’s relevance to the SME context. To guarantee the validity and reliability of our findings, we employed data triangulation, a critical method in maintaining research rigor. This comprehensive approach included in-depth interviews with both the licensor and the licensees, supplemented by extensive desk research and on-site observations. Our analysis predominantly centered on the licensees’ perspective regarding the critical success factors in technology commercialization through licensing. This focus stemmed from the licensees’ direct role in implementing and adapting the licensed technology across various markets, providing essential insights into operational challenges and success factors. Consequently, examining the diverse strategies adopted by the licensees, each shaped Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 9 3 of 17 by their unique organizational and market dynamics, offered a comprehensive view of the varied approaches to successful technology commercialization. In contrast, our analysis placed greater emphasis on the licensor’s viewpoint to gain deeper insights into the background, specifics, and outcomes of each licensing alliance. As the central figure in all the alliances under study, the licensor offered a holistic perspective on their formation and management, as well as an assessment of whether each alliance resulted in success or failure. This dual approach, combining insights from both licensor and licensees, enriched our understanding of the dynamics inherent in international licensing alliances among SMEs, significantly contributing to the discourse on effective strategies for technology commercialization in a global context. The research framework for this study is anchored by the following exploratory, open-ended research questions: 1. What are the primary factors that drive successful technology commercialization? 2. What factors are commonly linked to failures in technology commercialization? The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2offers a review of pertinent literature, thereby establishing the theoretical foundation for the study. Section 3 delineates the research methodology employed, while Section 4presents salient findings derived from a cross-case comparative analysis. Finally, Section 5concludes the paper and outlines avenues for future research. 2. Critical Success Factors in the Technology Commercialization Process through Licensing Technology commercialization is conceptualized as an expansive process encompassing stages from planning to market entry via licensing (Jung et al. 2015;Lichtenthaler 2011). These pivotal stages are illustrated in Figure 1. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18 and success factors. Consequently, examining the diverse strategies adopted by the licensees, each shaped by their unique organizational and market dynamics, offered a comprehensive view of the varied approaches to successful technology commercialization. In contrast, our analysis placed greater emphasis on the licensors viewpoint to gain deeper insights into the background, specifics, and outcomes of each licensing alliance. As the central figure in all the alliances under study, the licensor offered a holistic perspective on their formation and management, as well as an assessment of whether each alliance resulted in success or failure. This dual approach, combining insights from both licensor and licensees, enriched our understanding of the dynamics inherent in international licensing alliances among SMEs, significantly contributing to the discourse on effective strategies for technology commercialization in a global context. The research framework for this study is anchored by the following exploratory, open-ended research questions: 1. What are the primary factors that drive successful technology commercialization? 2. What factors are commonly linked to failures in technology commercialization? The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 offers a review of pertinent literature, thereby establishing the theoretical foundation for the study. Section 3 delineates the research methodology employed, while Section 4 presents salient findings derived from a cross-case comparative analysis. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper and outlines avenues for future research. 2. Critical Success Factors in the Technology Commercialization Process through Licensing Technology commercialization is conceptualized as an expansive process encompassing stages from planning to market entry via licensing (Jung et al. 2015; Lichtenthaler 2011). These pivotal stages are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1. Stages of the technology commercialization process, adapted from Lichtenthaler (2011) and Jung et al. (2015). While technology licensing offers mutual advantages for both licensors and licensees (Arora et al. 2001), the successful implementation of a licensing strategy necessitates the careful consideration of various critical elements (Megantz 2002; Verbano et al. 2011). As such, scholarly inquiries into the factors influencing the success or failure of technology commercialization through licensing are of considerable academic and practical significance. In the present study, we scrutinize nine critical success factors as delineated by Durst and Ståhle (2013): relational issues, people, governance, facilitators, resources, strategy, technology commercialization process, leadership, and culture. These factors can be cohesively categorized into four overarching domains, as proposed by Bigliardi and Galati (2016): knowledge, collaboration, organizational, and financial and strategic. The ensuing section elaborates on the specific factors subsumed under each of these categories, culminating in a synthesized classification presented in Table 1. The category of “Knowledge” encompasses both internal and external expertise pertinent to the commercialization of technology. This domain is integral to the success of a licensing venture, as it facilitates the incorporation of external specialized knowledge into the organization (Olawore et al. 2022; van de Vrande et al. 2009). Included within this Figure 1. Stages of the technology commercialization process, adapted from Lichtenthaler (2011) and Jung et al. (2015). While technology licensing offers mutual advantages for both licensors and licensees (Arora et al. 2001), the successful implementation of a licensing strategy necessitates the careful consideration of various critical elements (Megantz 2002;Verbano et al. 2011). As such, scholarly inquiries into the factors influencing the success or failure of technology commercialization through licensing are of considerable academic and practical significance. In the present study, we scrutinize nine critical success factors as delineated by Durst and Ståhle (2013): relational issues, people, governance, facilitators, resources, strategy, technology commercialization process, leadership, and culture. These factors can be cohesively categorized into four overarching domains, as proposed by Bigliardi and Galati (2016): knowledge, collaboration, organizational, and financial and strategic. The ensuing section elaborates on the specific factors subsumed under each of these categories, culminating in a synthesized classification presented in Table 1. The category of “Knowledge” encompasses both internal and external expertise pertinent to the commercialization of technology. This domain is integral to the success of a licensing venture, as it facilitates the incorporation of external specialized knowledge into the organization (Olawore et al. 2022;van de Vrande et al. 2009). Included within this category is the factor of the “Technology Commercialization Process”, alternatively termed Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 9 4 of 17 “Open Innovation” or “Licensing”, contingent upon the specific focus of the process in question. This factor necessitates a nuanced understanding of the various stages involved in technology commercialization (Colombo et al. 2011), the distinct phases of a technology’s lifecycle (Buganza and Verganti 2009), and the idiosyncrasies inherent to each case with respect to process implementation (van de Vrande et al. 2009). A lack of comprehensive understanding in this area can result in ambiguous or overly complex processes, thereby undermining the efficacy of technology commercialization efforts. Table 1. Classification of critical success factors for technology commercialization through licensing. Category Critical Factor References Knowledge Technology commercialization process (Buganza and Verganti 2009;Colombo et al. 2011; Olawore et al. 2022;van de Vrande et al. 2009). Collaboration Relational issues (Arsanti et al. 2022;Bigliardi and Galati 2016;Brunswicker and Ehrenmann 2013;Buganza et al. 2011;de Oliveira et al. 2018;Grama-Vigouroux et al. 2020;Jung et al. 2015;Lee et al. 2023;Puck et al. 2007;Schiele 2012;van de Vrande et al. 2009;Verbano et al. 2011;Ziyadin et al. 2018). Facilitators (Chiaroni et al. 2010;Durst and Ståhle 2013;Muller and Hutchins 2012;Puck et al. 2007;Whelan et al. 2011). Organizational People (de Oliveira et al. 2018;Lichtenthaler 2009;Muller and Hutchins 2012;Ostergaard et al. 2011; van de Vrande et al. 2009;Verbano et al. 2011). Leadership (de Oliveira et al. 2018;Lee et al. 2012;Verbano et al. 2011). Culture (Ayerbe et al. 2022;de Oliveira et al. 2018;Grama-Vigouroux et al. 2020;Lichtenthaler 2011;Tranekjer and Knudsen 2012; Vanhaverbeke 2017;Verbano et al. 2011). Financial and strategic Resources (Brunswicker and Ehrenmann 2013;Jung et al. 2015; Niehaves 2010;Schiele 2012;van de Vrande et al. 2009; Verbano et al. 2011). Governance (Buganza et al. 2011;Chiaroni et al. 2010;de Oliveira et al. 2018;Lee et al. 2012;Mooi and Wuyts 2021;Muller and Hutchins 2012;Puck et al. 2007;van de Vrande et al. 2009; Verbano et al. 2011). Strategy (Ahn et al. 2017;Buganza and Verganti 2009;Chen et al. 2023;de Oliveira et al. 2018;Grama-Vigouroux et al. 2020; Lichtenthaler 2011;Vanhaverbeke 2017;Verbano et al. 2011). The category of “collaboration” pertains to partner behavior and consolidates two key factors: “relational issues” and “facilitators”. The “relational issues” factor assesses the efficacy of inter-organizational network structures in fostering robust partnerships and close business affiliations (Brunswicker and Ehrenmann 2013;de Oliveira et al. 2018; Ziyadin et al. 2018). Along these lines, Bashir et al. (2023) emphasized the role of managerial ties in enhancing SME performance through business model innovation. This factor aims to optimize partner alignment (Bigliardi and Galati 2016;Grama-Vigouroux et al. 2020;Lee et al. 2023;van de Vrande et al. 2009). Trust and partner compatibility emerge as pivotal parameters within this context (de Oliveira et al. 2018;Jung et al. 2015). Additional considerations include the nature of the collaboration (Buganza et al. 2011), transparent and open communication (Puck et al. 2007;Schiele 2012), and a history of shared experiences between partners (Schiele 2012). Conversely, opportunistic behavior can undermine the effectiveness of a licensing partnership (Arsanti et al. 2022;de Oliveira et al. 2018; Jung et al. 2015 ). The “facilitators” factor encompasses the roles of innovation brokers (Whelan et al. 2011), relationship managers (Muller and Hutchins 2012), team trainers (Puck et al. 2007), and innovation champions (Chiaroni et al. 2010). These facilitators Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 9 5 of 17 serve to enhance the organizational performance by synergizing the diverse actors and their respective concerns, thereby fostering more efficient collaborative efforts (Durst and Ståhle 2013). The “organizational” category encompasses managerial competencies and integrates three pivotal factors: “people”, “leadership”, and “culture”. The “people” factor underscores the importance of assembling a diverse, multidisciplinary team—characterized by varied gender, age, educational backgrounds, and specialized skills—to engage in the technology commercialization endeavor (Lichtenthaler 2009;Ostergaard et al. 2011;van de Vrande et al. 2009). Additionally, team members must demonstrate a strong commitment to the project’s objectives (de Oliveira et al. 2018;Muller and Hutchins 2012) and be adequately motivated to effectively contribute (van de Vrande et al. 2009;Verbano et al. 2011). The “leadership” factor pertains to the presence of leaders who are both willing and competent to guide the organization through transformative processes (de Oliveira et al. 2018;Lee et al. 2012;Verbano et al. 2011). The “culture” factor evaluates the extent to which an organization is receptive to change, open to external innovations, and fosters an environment that encourages experimentation, networking, and knowledge sharing (Ayerbe et al. 2022;de Oliveira et al. 2018;Grama-Vigouroux et al. 2020;Lichtenthaler 2011; Tranekjer and Knudsen 2012;Vanhaverbeke 2017;Verbano et al. 2011). The “financial and strategic” category encompasses both economic and strategic dimensions, integrating three critical factors: “resources”; “governance”; and “strategy”. The “resources” factor emphasizes an organization’s capability to furnish the requisite resources for successful technology commercialization. These resources include not only high-caliber human capital but also adequate financial budgeting and time allocation (Jung et al. 2015;Niehaves 2010;Schiele 2012;van de Vrande et al. 2009;Verbano et al. 2011). Additionally, the organization should be prepared to invest in essential infrastructure, such as information technology systems (Jung et al. 2015;Brunswicker and Ehrenmann 2013; Schiele 2012). The “governance” factor posits that effective technology commercialization is facilitated by well-structured governance frameworks (Buganza et al. 2011;Lee et al. 2012;Mooi and Wuyts 2021;Verbano et al. 2011). This includes a clear delineation of roles, tasks, and responsibilities (van de Vrande et al. 2009), well-articulated objectives (Muller and Hutchins 2012), performance measurement systems (Chiaroni et al. 2010;Mooi and Wuyts 2021;Puck et al. 2007), and robust project and knowledge management systems (de Oliveira et al. 2018;Chiaroni et al. 2010). The “strategy” factor underscores the necessity for organizations to integrate technology commercialization within the broader contours of their corporate strategy (Ahn et al. 2017;Buganza and Verganti 2009;Chen et al. 2023;de Oliveira et al. 2018;Grama-Vigouroux et al. 2020;Lichtenthaler 2011;Vanhaverbeke 2017; Verbano et al. 2011). 3. Research Methodology This section delineates the research design employed for this study, elaborating on the procedures for case selection, data collection, coding, and analysis. 3.1. Research Design The primary aim of this study is to scrutinize the key determinants for successful technology commercialization via licensing, with a specific focus on the strategic exploitation of licensing by SMEs in international contexts. Given the intricate nature of the phenomenon under investigation, a multiple-case-study approach was deemed the most appropriate research methodology (Eisenhardt 1989;Yin 2009). This methodological choice is further substantiated by its alignment with the exploratory, open-ended research questions posited in this study (refer to Section 1), as it facilitates the extraction of rich, nuanced data. To systematically address these research questions, a classification framework was constructed based on an exhaustive review of the pertinent literature (see Table 1). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 9 6 of 17 3.2. Case Selection The methodology for case selection in multiple-case-study research typically employs non-random sampling techniques (Saunders et al. 2019). In the present study, the objective was to capture a diverse range of outcomes—both successful and unsuccessful—in technology commercialization projects involving licensing. To this end, a maximum variation sampling strategy was employed to ensure a heterogeneous selection of participating organizations (Palinkas et al. 2015;Chountalas et al. 2020). From an initial pool of nine organizations within the solar photovoltaic sector, all engaged in similar technology commercialization endeavors—specifically, the commercialization of solar mounting systems from a common licensor, hereafter referred to as Company L—we selected a stratified purposeful sample of four licensees, hereafter referred to as Companies I, T, G, and M. This selection was based on criteria designed to capture a broad spectrum of experiences and strategies in technology commercialization. These criteria included the diversity of market presence, the scale of operations, the extent of engagement in licensing activities, and the unique challenges and successes each company encountered in their respective markets. This approach ensured a comprehensive analysis that reflects the varied landscape of SMEs in the solar photovoltaic sector. The licensor and the four selected licensees willingly granted us access to a multifaceted dataset. Our focus was intentionally narrowed to SMEs to contribute to an area that remains relatively under-researched in contrast to the extensive literature available on larger organizations. It is worth noting that SMEs present unique challenges and opportunities in the realm of technology commercialization, necessitating specialized scholarly attention (Bigliardi and Galati 2016;Lee et al. 2010;Lichtenthaler 2011). The profiles of the participating organizations are delineated in Table 2, with names redacted to preserve confidentiality. Table 2. Profiles of sample organizations. Company Role Main Activities Origin Category 1 Company L Licensor Engineering, sales, and marketing of solar mounting systems in the photovoltaic sector Spain Small Company I Licensee Specialized electrical construction in the renewable energy sector India Medium Company T Licensee Engineering, procurement, and construction with a specialization in photovoltaics Turkey Small Company G Licensee Manufacturing of cable trays Greece Small Company M Licensee Supplier of solar components Mexico Micro 1Size categories are based on the criteria for SME classification as stipulated by the European Union (2016). 3.3. Data Collection Procedures To ensure robustness in the data collection process, a triangulated approach was employed, incorporating multiple methods such as interviews, desk research, and onsite observations. The objective of this triangulation is to corroborate the data, thereby enhancing the credibility of the research findings (Jick 1979;Shih 1998). Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured format, which allows for the emergence of new themes warranting further investigation (Saunders et al. 2019). The duration of these interviews varied, ranging from a minimum of one hour to a maximum of two hours. The interviews were structured to collect perspectives from both the licensor (i.e., Company L) and the licensees (i.e., Companies I, T, G, and M), aligning with our study’s analytical focus. Our analysis primarily explored the viewpoints of the licensees to uncover critical success factors in technology commercialization. Additionally, we integrated the licensor’s insights to gain a thorough understanding of each alliance’s background, specifics, and outcomes. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 9 7 of 17 The two questionnaires utilized for the semi-structured interviews with the licensor and the licensees are presented in Sections Aand B, respectively. These interviews were conducted with key executives from each participating organization, as detailed below: • Company L: Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Legal Counsel (Conducted in-person); •Company I: Head of Solar Department (Conducted via teleconference); •Company T: Chief Operating Officer (COO) (Conducted via teleconference); •Company G: Managing Director (Conducted in-person); •Company M: Managing Director (Conducted via teleconference). All interviews were meticulously audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed. To enhance the validity and reliability of the findings, the data obtained from these interviews were triangulated with the on-site observations of project procedures, where feasible, and corroborated through a comprehensive review of official company documentation, including datasheets, corporate presentations, and financial records. Prior to each interview, confidentiality protocols were explicitly discussed to facilitate candid discussions of sensitive topics. This precautionary measure aimed to ensure the integrity of the data by encouraging unreserved disclosures from the interviewees. Table 3provides a synthesized overview of the data sources utilized for each critical success factor, segmented by licensee, reflecting their unique experiences in their individual licensing alliances with Company L. The table incorporates a bubble chart to visually represent relative frequencies—specifically, the word count per factor for each interview respondent. Circles of varying diameters are used to denote these frequencies. Additionally, the table specifies the validation methods employed, indicating whether the interview data were corroborated through document review, on-site observations, or both. Table 3. Overview of the data sources per critical success factor across different licensees. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18 Table 3. Overview of the data sources per critical success factor across different licensees. Company I Company T Company G Company M Critical Success Factors Interview Interview Confirmed by: Interview Interview Confirmed by: Interview Interview Confirmed by: Interview Interview Confirmed by: Head of Solar Department Review of Documents and Records On-Site Observation Chief Operating Officer Review of Documents and Records On-Site Observation Managing Director Review of Documents and Records On-Site Observation Managing Director Review of Documents and Records On-Site Observation Knowle dge Technology commercialization process Collaboration Relational issues Facilitators Organizational People Leadership Culture Financial and strategic Resources Governance Strategy The feasibility of conducting on-site observations was facilitated by our prior consultancy engagements with the organizations involved in these specific technology commercialization projects. Examples of these observations encompass: (i) specialized training sessions, including both technical and sales seminars conducted by the licensor; (ii) dayto-day operations within the departments responsible for technology commercialization Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 9 8 of 17 at the licensee organizations; and (iii) attendance at solar exhibitions where both licensor and licensees were present, providing them with an opportunity to evaluate their mutual compatibility. 3.4. Data Coding and Analysis Data coding procedures were principally informed by the “start list” of codes proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994), and were executed with the aid of MAXQDA 2022 (Release 22.8.0) software, a specialized tool designed for computer-assisted qualitative data analysis. These codes were derived from the study’s classification scheme and overarching research questions. Consequently, key factors were identified early in the research process, corroborated by the comprehensive literature review delineated in Section 2. This approach ensured a rigorous and systematic analysis, enhancing the credibility and validity of the study’s findings. 3.5. Case Analysis Method The coding of data primarily served to identify emergent patterns, particularly in the cross-case analysis phase of the research, as recommended by Campbell (1975). Yin (2009) advocates for the preparation of individual case reports prior to synthesizing cross-case conclusions, an approach that informed the framework depicted in Figure 2. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18 Figure 2. Adapted multiple-case study framework, based on Yin (2009). The data analysis employed a dual approach, encompassing both within-case and cross-case analyses. Due to space constraints and in the interest of enhancing readability, this paper omits individual case reports, focusing instead on the aggregated data derived from each cases within-case analysis. These data are organized in the form of cross-case comparisons and are summarized in Table 4. Each entry in the table is categorized by its corresponding critical success factor, facilitating a more streamlined comparison between the empirical findings and existing literature, in accordance with the methodologies proposed by Eisenhardt (1989) and Baxter and Jack (2008). Table 4. Cross-case summary of critical success factors for technology commercialization. Critical Success Factors Licensees Company I Company T Company G Company M Technology commercialization process Integrated and systematic approach aligned with overall business activities. Partially integrated; operates alongside but not fully within business activities. Partially integrated; operates alongside but not fully within business activities. Absent; no specific process in place. Relational issues Synergistic and close b usiness relationship with Company L. Completed two successful projects with Company Ls technology. Over a decade-long manufacturing partnership with Company L. No prior collaboration with Company L. Facilitators Engaged licensing trainers for project management. Engaged licensing trainers for project management. Absent; lacks expertise in managing collaborative relationships. Absent; lacks expertise in managing collaborative relationships. People Multidisciplinary team; adequate number of highly skilled, projectdedicated employees. Limited but highly skilled staff for all licensing proj ects. Single highly skilled, proj ect-dedicated employee. Minimal shareholder involvement; insufficient dedicated time for the project. Leadership Active top management support for project and collaboration. Active top management support for project and collaboration. Limited top management engagement due to time constraints. Top management preoccupied; minimal project involvement. Culture Open culture; history of successful licensing proj ects. Predominantly open culture; prior familiarity with Company Ls technology as a client. Predominantly open culture; prior supplier relationship with Company L. Closed culture; focus on immediate revenue without innovation investment. Figure 2. Adapted multiple-case study framework, based on Yin (2009). The data analysis employed a dual approach, encompassing both within-case and cross-case analyses. Due to space constraints and in the interest of enhancing readability, this paper omits individual case reports, focusing instead on the aggregated data derived from each case’s within-case analysis. These data are organized in the form of cross-case comparisons and are summarized in Table 4. Each entry in the table is categorized by its corresponding critical success factor, facilitating a more streamlined comparison between the empirical findings and existing literature, in accordance with the methodologies proposed by Eisenhardt (1989) and Baxter and Jack (2008). Table 4. Cross-case summary of critical success factors for technology commercialization. Critical Success Factors Licensees Company I Company T Company G Company M Technology commercialization process Integrated and systematic approach aligned with overall business activities. Partially integrated; operates alongside but not fully within business activities. Partially integrated; operates alongside but not fully within business activities. Absent; no specific process in place. Relational issues Synergistic and close business relationship with Company L. Completed two successful projects with Company L’s technology. Over a decade-long manufacturing partnership with Company L. No prior collaboration with Company L. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 9 15 of 17 •How did you go about selecting your licensing partner? •Can you describe the nature of your licensing alliance? • Can you describe your company’s approach to the technology commercialization process in collaboration with Company L? • How do you adapt the commercialization process to align with different technologies and market conditions? • How do relational dynamics with Company L influence the success of your licensing alliance? • Have you engaged any external facilitators or trainers to assist in the technology commercialization process? If so, how have they contributed? • Can you discuss the role and composition of the team involved in the technology commercialization project? • How does leadership within your company contribute to the success of the licensing alliance? • What aspects of your company’s culture have been pivotal in navigating the technology commercialization process? • What resources (financial, human, etc.) have been crucial in your technology commercialization efforts? • How is governance structured in your company for overseeing the licensing process? • How does technology commercialization via licensing integrate into your overall corporate strategy? •How do you assess the outcomes of your licensing alliance with Company L? References Ahn, Joon Mo, Tim Minshall, and Letizia Mortara. 2017. Understanding the Human Side of Openness: The Fit between Open Innovation Modes and CEO Characteristics. R & D Management 47: 727–40. [CrossRef] Arora, Ashish, Andrea Fosfuri, and Alfonso Gambardella. 2001. Markets for Technology and Their Implications for Corporate Strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change 10: 419–51. [CrossRef] Arsanti, Tutuk Ari, Neil Semuel Rupidara, and Tanya Bondarouk. 2022. How to Find the Right Partner? Open Innovation Partner Selection Process. Administrative Sciences 12: 165. [CrossRef] Ayerbe, Cécile, Liliana Mitkova, Die Hu, and Yuandi Wang. 2022. Knowledge Transfer in Open Innovation through Licensing: Evidence of Chinese Firms. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies 13: 311–40. [CrossRef] Bashir, Makhmoor, Abdulaziz Alfalih, and Sudeepta Pradhan. 2023. Managerial Ties, Business Model Innovation & SME Performance: Moderating Role of Environmental Turbulence. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8: 100329. Baxter, Pamela, and Susan Jack. 2008. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report 13: 544–59. [CrossRef] Bigliardi, Barbara, and Francesco Galati. 2016. Which Factors Hinder the Adoption of Open Innovation in SMEs? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 28: 869–85. [CrossRef] Brown, Austin R., Matthew S. Wood, and David J. Scheaf. 2022. Discovery Sells, but Who’s Buying? An Empirical Investigation of Entrepreneurs’ Technology License Decisions. Journal of Business Research 144: 403–15. [CrossRef] Brunswicker, Sabine, and Frank Ehrenmann. 2013. Managing Open Innovation in SMEs: A Good Practice Example of a German Software Firm. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 4: 33. [CrossRef] Buganza, Tommaso, Davide Chiaroni, Gabriele Colombo, and Federico Frattini. 2011. Organisational Implications of Open Innovation: An Analysis of Inter-Industry Patterns. International Journal of Innovation Management 15: 423–55. [CrossRef] Buganza, Tommaso, and Roberto Verganti. 2009. Open Innovation Process to Inbound Knowledge: Collaboration with Universities in Four Leading Firms. European Journal of Innovation Management 12: 306–25. [CrossRef] Campbell, Donald T. 1975. III. ‘Degrees of Freedom’ and the Case Study. Comparative Political Studies 8: 178–93. [CrossRef] Chen, Xu, Xiaojun Wang, and Haojie Jing. 2023. Technology Licensing Strategies for Three Cost-Differential Manufacturers. European Journal of Operational Research 308: 622–35. [CrossRef] Chesbrough, Henry. 2006. Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Available online: https://books.google.com/books?hl=el&lr=&id=MWPlLbULAmwC&oi=fnd&pg=PT3&dq=Landscape,+Open+ Business+Models:+How+to+Thrive+in+the+New+Innovation&ots=BHyP1XgsaP&sig=QtLTB7tj9Z0fOWBRzNiIOw12bZM (accessed on 3 October 2023). Chiaroni, Davide, Vittorio Chiesa, and Federico Frattini. 2010. Unravelling the Process from Closed to Open Innovation: Evidence from Mature, Asset-Intensive Industries. R & D Management 40: 222–45. [CrossRef] Chountalas, Panos T., Anastasios I. Magoutas, and Eleni Zografaki. 2020. The Heterogeneous Implementation of ISO 9001 in Service-Oriented Organizations. TQM Journal 32: 56–77. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 9 16 of 17 Colombo, Gabriele, Claudio Dell’Era, and Federico Frattini. 2011. New Product Development (NPD) Service Suppliers in Open Innovation Practices: Processes and Organization for Knowledge Exchange and Integration. International Journal of Innovation Management 15: 165–204. [CrossRef] de Oliveira, Lindomar Subtil, Márcia Elisa Echeveste, and Marcelo Nogueira Cortimiglia. 2018. Critical Success Factors for Open Innovation Implementation. Journal of Organizational Change Management 31: 1283–94. [CrossRef] Durst, Susanne, and Pirjo Ståhle. 2013. Success Factors of Open Innovation-a Literature Review. International Journal of Business Research and Management 4: 111–31. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. Building Theories from Case-Study Research. Academy of Management Review 14: 532–50. [CrossRef] Enkel, Ellen, Oliver Gassmann, and Henry Chesbrough. 2009. Open R&D and Open Innovation: Exploring the Phenomenon. R&D Management 39: 311–16. [CrossRef] European Union. 2016. User Guide to the SME Definition. Luxembourg: European Commission. Grama-Vigouroux, Simona, Sana Saidi, Anne Berthinier-Poncet, Wim Vanhaverbeke, and Allane Madanamoothoo. 2020. From Closed to Open: A Comparative Stakeholder Approach for Developing Open Innovation Activities in SMEs. Journal of Business Research 119: 230–44. [CrossRef] Jick, Todd D. 1979. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 602–11. [CrossRef] Jung, Mijung, Yi-beck Lee, and Heesang Lee. 2015. Classifying and Prioritizing the Success and Failure Factors of Technology Commercialization of Public R&D in South Korea: Using Classification Tree Analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer 40: 877–98. [CrossRef] Kim, Eungdo, InGyu Lee, Hongbum Kim, and Kwangsoo Shin. 2021. Factors Affecting Outbound Open Innovation Performance in Bio-Pharmaceutical Industry-Focus on Out-Licensing Deals. Sustainability 13: 4122. [CrossRef] Kutvonen, Antero. 2011. Strategic Application of Outbound Open Innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 14: 460–74. [CrossRef] Lee, Sang M., Taewon Hwang, and Donghyun Choi. 2012. Open Innovation in the Public Sector of Leading Countries. Management Decision 50: 147–62. [CrossRef] Lee, Sungjoo, Gwangman Park, Byungun Yoon, and Jinwoo Park. 2010. Open Innovation in SMEs-An Intermediated Network Model. Research Policy 39: 290–300. [CrossRef] Lee, Yeolan, Eric A. Fong, and Hyunseob Kim. 2023. Coopetition and Technology Licensing Partner Selection. Industrial Marketing Management 112: 60–70. [CrossRef] Lichtenthaler, Ulrich. 2009. Outbound Open Innovation and Its Effect on Firm Performance: Examining Environmental Influences. R & D Management 39: 317–30. [CrossRef] Lichtenthaler, Ulrich. 2011. The Evolution of Technology Licensing Management: Identifying Five Strategic Approaches. R&D Management 41: 173–89. [CrossRef] Megantz, Robert C. 2002. Technology Management: Developing and Implementing Effective Licensing Programs. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Available online: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130000798079123712 (accessed on 12 October 2023). Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage. Min, Kyung-Baek, Changyong Lee, and Young-Choon Kim. 2022. The Impact of the Timing of Patent Allowance on Technology Licensing Performance: Evidence from University Invention Commercialization. R & D Management 52: 633–49. [CrossRef] Mooi, Erik, and Stefan Wuyts. 2021. Value from Technology Licensing—The Role of Monitoring and Licensing Experience. International Journal of Research in Marketing 38: 1034–54. [CrossRef] Muller, Amy, and Nate Hutchins. 2012. Open Innovation Helps Whirlpool Corporation Discover New Market Opportunities. Strategy & Leadership 40: 36–42. Niehaves, Bjoern. 2010. Open Process Innovation: The Impact of Personnel Resource Scarcity on the Involvement of Customers and Consultants in Public Sector BPM. Business Process Management Journal 16: 377–93. [CrossRef] Olawore, Ayodeji Sulaiman, Kuan Yew Wong, Azanizawati Ma’aram, and Wahyudi Sutopo. 2022. Factors That Influence Successful Technology Commercialization. Paper presented at the 3rd Asia Pacific International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, September 13–15; pp. 118–29. Available online: http://ieomsociety.org/ proceedings/2022malaysia/22.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2023). Ostergaard, Christian, Bram Timmermans, and Kari Kristinsson. 2011. Does a Different View Create Something New? The Effect of Employee Diversity on Innovation. Research Policy 40: 500–509. [CrossRef] Palinkas, Lawrence A., Sarah M. Horwitz, Carla A. Green, Jennifer P. Wisdom, Naihua Duan, and Kimberly Hoagwood. 2015. Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 42: 533–44. [CrossRef] Portuguez-Castro, May. 2023. Exploring the Potential of Open Innovation for Co-Creation in Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review. Administrative Sciences 13: 198. [CrossRef] Puck, Jonas, David Rygl, and Markus Kittler. 2007. Cultural Antecedents and Performance Consequences of Open Communication and Knowledge Transfer in Multicultural Process-Innovation Teams. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change 3: 223–41. [CrossRef] Rivette, Kevin G., and David Kline. 2000. Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents. Boston: Harvard Business Press. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 9 17 of 17 Saunders, Mark, Philip Lewis, and Adrian Thornhill. 2019. Research Methods for Business Students, 8th ed. New York: Pearson Education. Schiele, Holger. 2012. Accessing Supplier Innovation By Being Their Preferred Customer. Research-Technology Management 55: 44–50. [CrossRef] Shih, Fu-Jin. 1998. Triangulation in Nursing Research: Issues of Conceptual Clarity and Purpose. Journal of Advanced Nursing 28: 631–41. [CrossRef] Tomita, Kenji. 2022. Open Innovation and Drug Discovery Startups in Japan: The Importance of Communication in Licensing. Asia Pacific Management Review 27: 282–91. [CrossRef] Tranekjer, Tina Lundø, and Mette Præst Knudsen. 2012. The (Unknown) Providers to Other Firms’ New Product Development: What’s in It for Them? Journal of Product Innovation Management 29: 986–99. [CrossRef] van de Vrande, Vareska, Jeroen P.J. de Jong, Wim Vanhaverbeke, and Maurice de Rochemont. 2009. Open Innovation in SMEs: Trends, Motives and Management Challenges. Technovation 29: 423–37. [CrossRef] Vanhaverbeke, Wim. 2017. Managing Open Innovation in SMEs. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Verbano, Chiara, Maria Crema, and Karen Venturini. 2011. Integration and Selectivity in Open Innovation: An Empirical Analysis in SMEs. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 5: 1459–67. Whelan, Eoin, Salvatore Parise, Jasper De Valk, and Rick Aalbers. 2011. Creating Employee Networks That Deliver Open Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review 53: 37–44. Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage, vol. 5. Ziyadin, Sayabek, Aizhan Omarova, Raigul Doszhan, Gulnara Saparova, and Gulim Zharaskyzy. 2018. Diversification of R&D Results Commercialization. Problems and Perspectives in Management 16: 331–43. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.