ILMIY ISHLANMALARNI TIJORATLASHTIRISHNI BOSHQARISHNING NAZARIY-METODOLOGIK YONDASHUVLARINI TAKOMILLASHTIRISH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55439/INS/vol3_iss5/515##article.subject##:
ilmiy ishlanma, tijoratlashtirish, texnologiyalar transferi, innovatsiya, institutsional yondashuv, dinamik qobiliyatlar, ochiq innovatsiyalar, Triple Helix, tijoratlashtirish boshqaruvi, iqtisodiy qiymat.##article.abstract##
Maqolada ilmiy ishlanmalarni tijoratlashtirishni boshqarishning nazariy-metodologik asoslari tizimlashtirilgan hamda “ilmiy natija”, “ilmiy ishlanma”, “texnologiyalar transferi”, “joriy etish”, “innovatsiya” va “tijoratlashtirish” kategoriyalarining iqtisodiy mazmuni va o‘zaro chegaralari aniqlashtirilgan. Ilmiy natijani yaratish, uni amaliy yechimga aylantirish va bozorda iqtisodiy qiymat yaratish bir-biriga bog‘liq, biroq mazmunan farqlanuvchi jarayonlar ekanligi asoslangan. Tijoratlashtirishning asosiy farqlovchi belgisi sifatida mustaqil iqtisodiy subyektning mavjudligi, huquqiy yoki iqtisodiy bitim, tekshiriladigan to‘lov hamda qiymat yaratishning takrorlanish imkoniyati ajratilgan. Institutsional yondashuv, resurslarga asoslangan nazariya, dinamik qobiliyatlar, ochiq innovatsiyalar, Triple Helix, innovatsiyalar diffuziyasi va bosqichli boshqaruv konsepsiyalarining tijoratlashtirish jarayonidagi funksional o‘rni tahlil qilingan. Tadqiqot natijasida ilmiy ishlanmalarni tijoratlashtirishni boshqarish tushunchasi ishlanmaning texnik, huquqiy va bozor tayyorligini oshirish, tranzaksion xavflarni kamaytirish hamda ilmiy bilimdan takrorlanuvchi iqtisodiy va ijtimoiy qiymat yaratishga yo‘naltirilgan qarorlar, resurslar, huquqlar, rag‘batlar va qaytuvchi aloqalarning o‘zaro bog‘langan tizimi sifatida takomillashtirilgan. Shuningdek, tijoratlashtirish boshqaruvi institutsional-huquqiy, tashkiliy-muvofiqlashtiruvchi, moliyaviy-iqtisodiy, bozor va talab, infratuzilmaviy, motivatsion hamda raqamli-axborot funksional bloklarining o‘zaro to‘ldiruvchanligiga asoslanishi taklif etilgan.
References
J. A. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press, 1934.
K. J. Arrow, “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention,” in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 1962, pp. 609–626.
O‘zbekiston Respublikasi, “Innovatsion faoliyat to‘g‘risida,” O‘RQ-630-son Qonun, 2020-yil 24-iyul.
OECD/Eurostat, Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th ed. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2018, doi: 10.1787/9789264304604-en.
World Intellectual Property Organization, Knowledge and Technology Transfer: From Lab to Market. Geneva, Switzerland: WIPO.
D. J. Teece, “Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy,” Research Policy, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 285–305, 1986, doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2.
E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY, USA: Free Press, 2003.
C. Freeman, Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London, U.K.: Pinter Publishers, 1987.
B.-Å. Lundvall, Ed., National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London, U.K.: Pinter Publishers, 1992.
H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff, “The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations,” Research Policy, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 109–123, 2000.
H. W. Chesbrough, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA, USA: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.
D. J. Teece, G. Pisano, and A. Shuen, “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 509–533, 1997.
R. G. Cooper, “Stage-Gate systems: A new tool for managing new products,” Business Horizons, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 44–54, 1990.
R. Jensen and M. Thursby, “Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions,” American Economic Review, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 240–259, 2001.
J. G. Thursby and S. Kemp, “Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing,” Research Policy, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 109–124, 2002.
D. S. Siegel, D. A. Waldman, and A. N. Link, “Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices,” Research Policy, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 27–48, 2003.
S. Lach and M. Schankerman, “Incentives and invention in universities,” RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 403–433, 2008.
M. Perkmann, V. Tartari, M. McKelvey et al., “Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations,” Research Policy, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 423–442, 2013.
A. E. Norov, “Innovatsion faoliyat va uning natijalarini tijoratlashtirishning nazariy va uslubiy asoslari,” Iqtisodiyot va innovatsion texnologiyalar, no. 1, pp. 116–126, 2020.
X. X. Daliyev, “Ilmiy-texnik ishlanmalarni tijoratlashtirish asosida innovatsiya faoliyati infratuzilmasini shakllantirish masalalari,” Moliya va bank ishi, 2022.
OECD, Commercialising Public Research: New Trends and Strategies. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2013.
D. Baglieri, F. Baldi, and C. L. Tucci, “University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all,” Technovation, vols. 76–77, pp. 51–63, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2018.05.003.
Downloads
##submissions.published##
How to Cite
##issue.issue##
##section.section##
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ergashev Rustam Rajabovich
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
