Financial Impedance Matching Method for Enhancing University-Firm Technology Transfer

Luis Roberto Vega-Gonzalez


Universities and R&D institutions undertake projects to create technological solutions, and at the same time, they teach, produce new knowledge, and learn. Since most universities in the developing world lack industrial production capacities, the technology they create is considered pre-competitive. However, a major goal of technological development is to create products and make them available in the market to different economic sectors in order to help people to solve problems and improve their quality of life. Due to its limitations to accomplish this goal, the university needs to transfer its propriety technology to industrial or entrepreneurial partners. Nevertheless, the definition of technology transfer agreement terms represents a complex communication problem, particularly the appraisal of the value of the technology made by both counterparts. This is partly because current technology valuation methods often disregard the point of view of both counterparts, even though the university’s interests are completely different from the firm’s interests. This paper proposes a technology valuation method using an analogy taken from physical systems, the method of impedance matching in electrical circuits, which intends to engage both parties in a common project with a common aim. The proposed method is tested using a technology transfer contract signed between the Applied Sciences and Technology Institute (UNAM) and a producer of biomedical prostheses.

Full Text:



Boer, F.P., (1999). The valuation of Technology. Business and Financial Issues in R&D. John Willey & Sons, pp.403 ISBN0-471-31638-5

Chang, C. K. N., Shipp, S. S., & Wang, A. J., (2002) The Advanced Technology Program: A public-private partnership for early stage technology development, Venture Capital, 4:4, 363-370, DOI: 10.1080/1369106022000028262

Cohen, W., Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 128-152.

Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (2006) Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. [e-book], Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chiesa, V., Gilardoni, E., (2015). The valuation of technology in buy-cooperate-sell decisions. European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8 Issue 2 pp. 157 – 181.

Damanpour, F. (1992). Organizational size and innovation. Organizational Studies, Vol. 13(3), pp. 375−402.

Douglas, W. (2014). How to measure anything: finding the value of "intangibles" in Business. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey

Hunt, F., Thorn, V., Mitchell, R., Probert, D., Phaal, R., (2007). Internal technology valuation: real world issues. PICMET Proceedings. August, Portland, Oregon – USA, p. 1736- 1742.

Johannessen, J. -A., Olsen, B., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2001). Innovation as newness: What is new, hownewand new towhom? European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4(1), pp. 20−31.

Kaats E., Opheij, W., (2014). Creating Conditions for Promising Collaboration: Alliances, Networks, Chains, and Strategic Partnerships. Springer Briefs in Business. ISBN 978-3-642-41443-5 (eBook); DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-41443-5

Lichtenthaler, U. (2011) Open innovation: past research, current debates, and future directions. The Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 75.

Maietta, O. W., (2015). Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry. Research Policy. Vol. 44, pp.1341-1359.

Park, Y., Park, G., (2002). A new method for technology valuation in monetary value: procedure and application. Technovation, Vol. 24, pp. 387–394.

Porter. M. E., (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating & sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.

Razgaitis, R., (2009). Valuation & Dealmaking of Technology-based intellectual property, Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, pp.626; ISBN 978-0-470-19333-4

Rothwell, R., (1992). Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990´s. R&D Management. Vol. 22, Issue 3, pp.221-239.

Rothwell, R., (1994). Towards the Fifth-generation Innovation Process. International Marketing Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 7-31 MCB University Press,

Kumar, S., Phrommathed, P., (2005). New Product Development. An Empirical Study of the Effects of Innovation Strategy, Organization Learning, and Market Conditions. Springer, pp. 201 ISBN 0-387-23271-0 — ISBN 0-387-23273-7

Scandura, A., (2016). University–industry collaboration and firms’ R&D effort. Research Policy. Vol. 45; pp. 1907-1922.

Vega-González L. R., Vega-Salinas, R. M., (2018). "Overview case analysis applied to Technology Transfer Projects (TTP): Cases of a Mexican Public University". Journal of Technology Management and Innovation (JOTMI). Número Especial sobre Transferencia de Tecnología, Vol. 13, Issue 3, pp. 90-103. ISSN: 0718-2724. (

Vega-Jurado, J., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., Fernández-de-Lucio, I., (2009). La Relación entre las Estratégias de Innovación: Coexistencia o Complementariedad. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation. Vol. 4, Issue 3, pp. 74-88. ISSN: 0718-2724. (

Vega-G. L. R; Saniger B. J. M., (2010). Valuation Methodology for Technology Developed at Academic R&D Groups. Journal of Applied Research and Technology, México; Vol. 8, No. 1; pp. 26-43. ISSN 1665-6423



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Luis Roberto Vega-Gonzalez

Research in Business and Management    ISSN 2330-8362

Copyright © Macrothink Institute  

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the '' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.

If you have any questions, please contact