No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Technology Transfer Offices and Commercialization of University Intellectual Property: Performance and Policy Implications
Abstract
The recent increase in the rate of commercialization of intellectual property at US and European universities has important
performance and policy implications. We review recent studies of the antecedents and consequences of these activities and
then draw some lessons learned for policy-makers. A key conclusion is that universities and regions must formulate and implement
coherent and feasible technology transfer/commercialization strategies.
... Academia and industry differ in purpose and language (Etzkowitz, 2003;Siegel et al., 2004). To efficiently integrate the results of academic scientific research into commercial applications, university technology transfer offices (TTOs) play a crucial role in linking universities and industry (Albats et al., 2018a(Albats et al., , 2018bAmesse & Cohendet, 2001;Battaglia et al., 2017;Bengoa et al., 2021;Etzkowitz, 2003;Markman et al., 2005;Sapir, 2020;Siegel et al., , 2007Zmuidzinaite et al., 2021). The governance structure is generally considered to have substantially impact on organizational performance (Good et al., 2019). ...
... Drawing on a longitude dataset of Taiwan universities, we find that the market-oriented structure of TTOs-represented by hiring professional CEOs (O'Kane, 2018;Rothaermel et al., 2007;Siegel et al., , 2007-strongly predicts high technology transfer performance (patents licensed and licensing revenue gained). We also show that the hierarchyoriented structure TTOs-is represented by strengthening administrative control (Chang et al., 2008;Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020;Lin et al., 2009;Tsai & Tsai, 2007)-negatively affects technology transfer performance. ...
... UTT activities include various commercialization activities, such as know-how, patent authorization, spin-off startups, and industryuniversity cooperation (Iacobucci et al., 2021;Rothaermel et al., 2007;Schmitz et al., 2017;Siegel & Wright, 2015). Commercialization activities centered on patent applications and patent licensing are the main form of technology transfer (Siegel et al., 2007). TTOs assist university professors in commercializing their research results through patent applications, commercial negotiations on patent-licensing methods, and the amount of revenue. ...
University technology transfer offices (TTOs) are being introduced at a rapid pace, making it critical that we understand how they affect university-to-industry technology transfer performance. Despite the growing interest in TTO governance, there are very few studies on TTO governance structures and how they are empirically effective in technology transfer performance. Our study aims at contributing to the existing literature in two ways. First, we take into account the diversity of TTO governance structures from a theoretical perspective: three types of TTOs are identified: market-oriented structure TTO, hierarchy-oriented structure TTO, and hybrid structure TTO. Second, we test our hypotheses by examining the number of patents licensed and technology transfer revenue for 157 Taiwan universities from 2016 to 2018. We find that (i) market-oriented structure is positively related to both the number of patents licensed and technology transfer revenue gained, (ii) hierarchy-oriented structure negatively affects both the number of patents licensed and technology transfer revenue gained, and (iii) we further find a negative interactive effect of market-oriented structure and hierarchy-oriented structure on the number of patents licensed and technology transfer revenue gained. These findings can inform the management of policies related to the performance of university-to-industry technology transfer, calling for attention to these organization structure attributes.
... According to (Siegel et al., 2007), the main phases of the knowledge transfer process are (i) the disclosure of inventions and ownership of IP, (ii) bringing university intellectual property to the market and (iii) the valuation of inventions. ...
... Higher education institutions address such issue by defining university policies for distributing income generated by licensing and sponsored research (Siegel et al., 2007) as well as for establishing an appropriate royalty regime also for academic spin-off activity (Di Gregorio and Shane, 2003). In the case of university-based companies, the relevance of effective royalty regimes is flanked by the increasingly strategic role of Technology Transfer Office in commercializing intellectual property. ...
... Several are the areas of intervention suggested by the literature in order to create a Pan-European market for industry-science transfers that can compete with the American one (Siegel et al., 2007). First, incentivizing researchers to take part in knowledge transfers aligning ownership regimes and setting-up flagship programs, which may represent a reference model for industry-science interaction mechanisms. ...
Diversos són els factors concomitants que permeten el desenvolupament de la transferència de coneixement, sobretot entre la consciència que el coneixement universitari es basa en la innovació i la productivitat empresarial, generant avantatges competitius rellevants. Les polítiques públiques s'han centrat a fomentar tipus de mecanismes, tant a nivell nacional com europeu. No obstant això, la transferència de coneixement és un procés complex, que implica diversos actors i objectius diferents, sovint conflictius. La nostra revisió de la literatura revela que els obstacles per a una transferència de coneixement eficaç i eficaç són nombrosos i de naturalesa diversa, que van des del sistema d’incentius a nivell individual fins a la gestió de processos a nivell institucional i nacional i europeu. Ens centrem en els principals mecanismes de transferència de coneixement de l’arbre, és a dir, llicències, patents i empreses emergents. Els estudis existents demostren que s’han pres mesures, però encara queda molt per recórrer. Es proporcionen suggeriments per als responsables de la formulació de polítiques i la direcció, i es discuteixen les implicacions a la secció final.
... Therefore, a Deputy Rector should be in charge of TM tasks, who should have a counterpart Deputy in each school/faculty/department/academic centre to design and implement knowledge transfer initiatives, ensure the balance between teaching, research and knowledge transfer in each organisational structure and coordinate such initiatives at the HEI level. Our results align with those of previous analyses indicating that university governing bodies must put a lot of effort into cooperating with regional governments to formulate and enact coherent and feasible strategies for knowledge transfer (Siegel et al., 2007). ...
... These dimensions are interlinked; for example, licensing agreements and academic spin-off companies can generate additional revenue for HEIs and employment opportunities, particularly for early stage researchers and graduates. In addition, direct economic and technological spillovers may occur at the local level by stimulating additional R&D investment and job creation (Siegel et al., 2007). When the dissemination and the use of research outputs is enabled by the implementation of effective KTO support services, this can have economic impact by promoting the development of new products and services, influencing business strategies and generating job opportunities. ...
National and regional governments have promoted the professionalisation of knowledge transfer by establishing specialised structures: Knowledge Transfer Offices (KTOs). Although previous research has examined the features and performance of KTOs extensively, there is limited evidence regarding their role and associated evolution in managing new academic, economic, social and environmental challenges that extend the scope and mission of both universities and of their KTOs. This exploratory study investigates the challenges encountered and the good practices of higher education institutions (HEIs) to improve knowledge transfer and innovation, making a threefold contribution. First, the study proposes a conceptual framework for improving KTO services based on the four intertwined dimensions of people, culture, governance and collaboration. Second, a multi-country analysis is conducted on the KTOs of nine European HEIs that participated in a project financed by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) Higher Education Institutions (HEI) Initiative. Third, drawing on the results obtained from a questionnaire and a set of focus groups, the study constructs a proposed roadmap for implementing or improving KTOs. The findings demonstrate that KTOs should focus on up-skilling and reskilling staff (people) and implement effective governance and coordination mechanisms under the supervision of and in synergy with university governing bodies while continuously monitoring, adapting and improving organisational structure, processes and initiatives (governance). Furthermore, an entrepreneurial mind-set should be promoted among academic and non-academic staff and students (culture). Constructing or strengthening internal and external collaborations with the key stakeholders of the ecosystem (collaboration) is also crucial.
... Financial resources are critical, as spinouts would otherwise be unable to develop novel advanced technologies into marketable products or services. The key asset of a spinout company is its technology or knowledge, which if protected by patents may attract venture capital investment (Siegel et al. 2007). ...
... This could be a form of an exit for investors, for example an initial public offering or acquisition (Mason and Harrison 2006), positively related to survival . Investment exits signify a successful development of a company, although in the case of academic spinouts, even at initial public offering stage, the companies may be generating no profits nor have a product to sell (Siegel et al. 2007). An alternative approach could be when companies reach a maturity and reorganisation stage, which on average concludes around 20 years of firm operations (Prokop and Kitagawa 2022). ...
... Financial resources are critical, as spinouts would otherwise be unable to develop novel advanced technologies into marketable products or services. The key asset of a spinout company is its technology or knowledge, which if protected by patents may attract venture capital investment (Siegel et al. 2007). ...
... This could be a form of an exit for investors, for example an initial public offering or acquisition (Mason and Harrison 2006), positively related to survival . Investment exits signify a successful development of a company, although in the case of academic spinouts, even at initial public offering stage, the companies may be generating no profits nor have a product to sell (Siegel et al. 2007). An alternative approach could be when companies reach a maturity and reorganisation stage, which on average concludes around 20 years of firm operations (Prokop and Kitagawa 2022). ...
... Such methods include startups by university staff, industrysponsored research, consultations, publications and presentations, as well as direct support of local and regional innovation through technology (science) parks and business incubators. In addition to generating income for the university, the need for technology transfer activities is very high, as such activities provide sufficient grounds for innovation to "swim" into the local economy by stimulating new scientific developments (R&D) and the creation of additional jobs at the university [19] . In this case, the experience of European countries can be useful for the economy of Uzbekistan. ...
... Instead, the strategy should be "tailored" based on the business model and other local characteristics of the particular institution. However, it is important for universities to find new individual ways of financing their activities, build their brands, expand and deepen their [19] networks by building trust, change their old-fashioned attitudes about "traditional universities", and their close ties with the business sector. conducting, maintaining competitive advantages and turning into "entrepreneurial universities" means the responsibility and at the same time [20] . ...
... This article makes three contributions to the literature. First, most existing evidence on contract design for early-stage technology trades is limited to technology transfer licences from university technology transfer offices (Jensen & Thursby, 2001, Feldman et al., 2002, Siegel et al., 2007, Dechenaux et al., 2011 In this paper, we consider early-stage technology transactions from and between for-profit firms as well as public sector research organisations. Including for-profit firms allows greater disparity in the explanatory variables, especially risk and firm size. ...
... To the best of our knowledge, no other empirical study has compared the effect of types of contingent contract terms (equity, milestones and royalties) whether a potential technology trade is finalised (although Razgaitis [2006] undertook a study on contract execution rates in Canada and the USA but did not investigate the role of contract terms). Previous analysis of contracts in market for early-stage technology have been largely restricted to contracts governing technology transfer licences from universities (Jensen & Thursby, 2001, Feldman et al., 2002, Siegel et al., 2007, Dechenaux et al., 2011. 9 Departing from a well-established literature on contracts for market-ready technology, our data were collected via an extensive survey of Australian buyers and sellers of immature technology resulting in a random sample of contracts governing both business-to-business sales as well as public sector-to-business sales. ...
We use data on over 800 early-stage technology transaction negotiations to model the impact of different types of risk on whether the transaction was executed and then test for contractual factors that may ameliorate these risks. Our data highlight the importance of project risk in determining which negotiations result in a signed contract. We find that transactions aiming to sell early-stage technology to large corporates are less likely to be executed when the buyer is large, and the contract contains royalties, holding constant five different types of risk involved in the transaction. Other risk-reducing contract modes do not appear to increase the probability of an executed contract. Our results support the view that technology sellers’ reliance on royalties may reflect organisational preferences or capabilities which may not be economically or managerially optimal. We also find that ‘people risk’ matters more than ‘technological’, ‘market’, ‘appropriation’ and ‘freedom-to-operate’ risks.
... Knowledge and technology transfer (KTT) undertaken in HEIs seeks to increase the impact of the research carried out by teaching and research staff through joint universityexternal actor actions and the commercialization of intellectual property, seeking to benefit external, public and private organizations (Bradley et al., 2013;Ma et al., 2023;Padilla Bejarano et al., 2023;Siegel et al., 2007). ...
... As such, a generic definition of KTT refers to the process by which the knowledge and technologies generated by an organization are put to use within another organizational context (de Wit-de Vries et al., 2018). For the university KTT, some researchers define it as the process of transferring, converting and commercializing knowledge and technologies developed by university research staff to companies and organizations in general interested in carrying out innovations from external sources of knowledge and technology (Siegel et al. al., 2007;Yuan et al., 2018). KTT practices then are defined as the activities and mechanisms used to put knowledge and technology into use in the context of another organization -examples include patents, licensing and sale of technologies, creation of spinoff and startup companies, contracts of technological research and development with companies and public entities, and specialized consultancies, etc. (Arenas & González, 2018;Azagra-Caro et al., 2022;Bradley et al., 2013;Castrillón-Muñoz, Infante-Moro, Zuñiga-Collazos, & José Martínez-López, 2020;Sánchez-Barrioluengo, 2014). ...
... Example: Commercialization of advanced farming technologies such as GPS-guided machinery, sensors, drones, data analytics to collect real-time data and information about soil conditions, crop health, weather patterns, and other relevant factors in the farming environment. Shane (2002), Siegel et al. (2007) ...
... Overall, the relationship between technology transfer and technological commercialization is a crucial part of the innovation process, ensuring that scientific discoveries and technological advancements have a real-world impact and contribute to economic growth and societal progress. Siegel & Griliches (1992), Shane (2002), Siegel et al. (2007) ...
The chapter titled "Basics of Technology Commercialization" provides an insightful exploration into the critical facets of technology, technological commercialization, technological advancement, and related concepts, offering readers a comprehensive understanding of this dynamic field. Beginning with an elucidation of the foundational concepts, the chapter delves into the essence of technology and its integral role in our modern world. It underscores how technological advancement fuels innovation, underlining the intrinsic connection between these two phenomena. We explore the process and functions of technological advancement, emphasizing how it propels society forward and drives economic growth. The chapter proceeds to dissect technological commercialization, a crucial juncture where innovation transforms into tangible products and services. Real-world examples illuminate this process, showcasing how groundbreaking ideas, such as precision agriculture in the field of farming, transition from conception to commercial success. To demystify the intricacies, the chapter offers a detailed breakdown of the steps involved in technological commercialization. From the initial disclosure of innovation to market entry, it maps the journey of bringing technology to life, highlighting the importance of patents, licensing, market 145 analysis, and business modeling. Lastly, the chapter touches upon technological transfer, elucidating how research findings and innovations make their way from labs to the commercial sphere. Together, these concepts form the building blocks of a knowledge-driven world where innovation thrives, fostering progress and prosperity.
... The role of entrepreneurship in economic development (Doutriaux, 1991;Troilo, 2011;Hayter et al., 2018) has made policymakers in many parts of the world to take a keen interest in academic entrepreneurship, which is the commercialisation of the outputs of university research (Ndonzuau, 2002;Locket and Wright, 2005;Rothaermel et al., 2007;Siegel et al., 2007;Grimaldi et al., 2011;Abreu and Grinevich, 2013;Kopiec et al., 2019). Academic entrepreneurship generates revenues for universities through the assignment and licensing of intellectual property rights (IPRs), specialist consulting, and the sale of shares in spin-offs (Quintas and Guy, 1995;Grimaldi et al., 2011;Stal et al., 2016). ...
... In 2009, patent licensing generated $1.7 billion for universities in the U.S. (AUTM, 2010;Rooksby, 2011). There are similar trends in Europe, Australia, Canada (Siegel at al., 2007), and Asia (WIPO, 2007). These revenues could facilitate further research, and provide incentives for university researchers, research assistants, and other university personnel (Grimaldi et al., 2011;Adelowo and Surujlal, 2020). ...
The importance of Intellectual Property (IP) in academic entrepreneurship, emphasises a need for specialised knowledge of IP law in university Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), and general awareness of IP rules amongst university researchers, research assistants, and other university personnel. This helps not only in preventing the inadvertent loss of valuable IP, but also the infringement of IP owned by other parties, which could result in costly law suits. Equally, knowledge of IP law is indispensable to the effective negotiation of licences, and the drafting of contracts that cater for the interests of both universities and industry. The objective of this article is, accordingly, to provide academic entrepreneurs with insights into IP regimes. This should help them in identifying valuable IP, and in ensuring that protection is not compromised. It will also help in determining the modes of protection suitable for particular forms of IP, how to manage acquired rights, and tackle infringements. In the following sections, we discuss these issues from the perspectives of several jurisdictions. Traversing our discussion is an examination of university IP policies, and relevant case law, which should enhance understanding. The last segment of the article concludes and reiterates the importance of IP awareness in academic entrepreneurship. Therefore, this article aims at fostering awareness of IP regimes amongst academic entrepreneurs.
... In the 2010s, already the relevant academic literature began to study the development of entrepreneurial capabilities in universities whose main interest consisted in the acceleration of the processes of commercialization of research results (Siegel et al., 2007;Wright et al., 2007;Guerrero & Link, 2022). To this end, Rasmussen et al. (2011) conducted a longitudinal study with spin-off companies to determine what are those capabilities in universities that facilitate entrepreneurship. ...
... Every new entrepreneurial initiative is based on exploiting a business opportunity (Rasmussen et al., 2011). In the case of university spin-offs/start-ups conceived in the university context, such a business opportunity is based on the development of a product or service based on the knowledge that has the capacity to become a (non)profit venture depending on the information that the university has captured from its environment or its stakeholders (Fini et al., 2018;Siegel et al., 2007;Siegel & Wright, 2015;Guerrero & Urbano, 2014;Urbano et al., 2017). However, not all universities have appropriated capabilities for capturing information, processing and seizing opportunities, building a culture of entrepreneurship, and transforming ideas into products or services. ...
The academic literature on entrepreneurship has focused on studying universities due to their crucial role in regions’ economic development. This is due to the organizational capabilities that allow them to be not only manufacturers of ideas but also promoters of entrepreneurial thinking that facilitates the creation of new ventures. However, despite the plethora of studies that address the relationship between universities and entrepreneurship, the literature still needs to be more comprehensive when explaining how contextual factors and stakeholders influence university capabilities that allow them to generate and manage entrepreneurial initiatives. Therefore, in this chapter, we address this knowledge gap by systematically reviewing 152 papers published between 2000 and 2022 and argue that entrepreneurial capabilities like building, capturing, connecting, and integrating are a consequence of the influence of the university’s stakeholders and context. To support our argument, we use deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning to establish cause-and-effect relationships between the works of literature on entrepreneurship, universities, and entrepreneurial capabilities.
... TTOs play a crucial role in nurturing entrepreneurial skills (Siegel & Wright, 2015a), assessing the commercial potential of research (Uctu & Jafta, 2014), and supporting market entry (Abreu & Grinevich, 2012). Their importance for academic patenting (Ustundag et al., 2011), licensing (Siegel, Veugelers, et al., 2007), and spin-off creation (Clarysse et al., 2011;O'shea et al., 2005) is well established with some studies suggesting that they are central to successful university technology transfer (Sapah et al., 2022). ...
This article investigates the underexplored phenomenon of technology transfer office (TTO) bypassing in academic entrepreneurship. While TTOs are established to centralize and support intellectual property-based commercialization, a significant portion of entrepreneurial projects avoid the TTO. Relying on both economic (transaction cost theory) and ethical (Tyler's justice model) considerations, this study explores the motivations and contextual factors behind a researcher's decision to commercialize an invention using means other than the TTO. This multiple case study employs an in-depth exploratory qualitative approach to investigate five academic entrepreneurs across different disciplines in Canadian universities who chose to bypass their TTO, often in contravention of institutional policies. Our findings reveal a complex interplay among individual motivations, institutional policies, and market realities. We identified four paths of awareness and strategic intent in this process ranging from unintentional non-compliance to tactical avoidance which challenge a simplistic perception of TTO bypassing as merely unintentional rather than deliberate. The study also reveals four overlapping contexts that promote TTO bypassing: confidence in personal expertise, previous negative experience of using the TTO, peer-influenced skepticism, and external partner challenges. Furthermore, the findings show that the reasons for bypassing include both economic and ethical motivations which steer academic entrepreneurs toward alternative, privately managed commercialization paths. The article concludes with some implications for university managers and policymakers related to how to address the multifaceted motivations for TTO bypassing.
... Therefore, it is inevitable that any discourse regarding technology transfer, especially at the national level, must take into account the significant disparity in size between technology suppliers (universities and other large public institutions) and technology users (small-sized private organizations). National and regional agencies for technology transfer were primarily established to address this dimensional asymmetry, which can lead to significant coordination challenges and delays in the transfer of new knowledge (Debackere & Veugelers, 2005;Siegel et al., 2007). However, only 27% of the articles in the sample mention the size of the firms that are potential users of new technologies. ...
Theoretical and empirical analyses of technology transfer are a well-established field of research due to significant impact that technology transfer has on society. However, little is known about the societal discourse on technology transfer. Media coverage could offer valuable insights, however this topic has not been explored in media studies or in the literature on the public understanding of science. This paper fills this gap and examines the media coverage of technology transfer in three prominent Italian newspapers from 1989 to 2019. It provides a general descriptive analysis, and identifies factors that influence the likelihood of the media raising issues related to technology transfer. The empirical analysis reveals that the press presents a generic description of technology transfer, with only a minority of articles associating technology transfer with specific industries, the identity of technology suppliers, and the characteristics of technology users. Less than a third of the articles raise issues related to technology transfer, and these issues are typically discussed in isolation from one another. On the one hand, the media’s portrayal of technology transfer fails to capture the interplay of various issues and, on the other, it does not emphasize the connections between these issues, the industries involved, or the characteristics of the stakeholders.
... According to some authors, university technology licensing shows that universities are heterogeneous in terms of their ability to engage in technology commercialisation (Wright et al., 2008;Siegel;Wright, 2015a). Given the heterogeneity of university commercialisation activity, the signal values for defending patent litigation cases will be lower for those universities with a poor track record of technology licensing. ...
With the challenges that arise in the 21st century, the creation of new products, processes or brands has become even more of a priority for global economic growth. In several countries, universities are the "engine" of efforts to create and commercialise scientific discoveries and improve the social welfare and benefits of the population. Two challenges inherent in licensing technology from universities are making all managers aware of the benefits of investing in research that generates innovations and determining the final commercial value of a technology that is at an early stage of development. The aim of this paper is to review the latest approaches to strategic management, particularly in the area of patents created by universities and how the effects of intentional and unintentional signalling impact institutionally.
... In addition, Siegel et al. (2007) stress the importance of coordinating institutional and government policies to optimize performance in the commercialisation of university intellectual property. They suggest that both universities and regions should develop coherent and workable policies to promote technology transfer in order to maximize the impact of these activities. ...
Academic entrepreneurship and the formation of spin-offs from educational institutions have been consolidated as essential elements to promote innovation and stimulate economic growth worldwide. However, the evolution of these initiatives shows marked differences between developed countries and emerging economies, such as Colombia. This study focuses on analyzing how research in this area has progressed, identifying the key factors that determine the success of spin-offs and suggesting a framework for action for Colombia in comparison with international dynamics. The findings reveal a shift in research attention from prioritizing the creation of spin-offs to a greater focus on their long-term performance and sustainability. At the international level, the relevance of technology transfer, strategic alliances between universities and industry and the efficient management of technological resources are highlighted. On the other hand, in the Colombian context, research tends to focus on institutional aspects, cultural factors and support regulations, underestimating the analysis of the performance of spin-offs after their creation. This paper aims to contribute to the formulation of policies and strategies that promote not only the emergence but also the sustainability of academic spin-offs in Colombia, seeking to align their practices with international standards in order to maximize their impact on the economic and social development of the country.
... Their research shows that investment in IP protection and the business development capabilities of these offices are significantly associated with spin-off success, highlighting the importance not only of resources but also of the specific skills of technology transfer staff. Siegel et al (2007) highlight the policy and performance implications of university IP commercialisation and suggest that universities and regions should formulate coherent technology transfer and commercialisation strategies to maximise the impact of their activities. Coordination between institutional and government policies is essential to create an enabling environment for technology transfer. ...
... The entrepreneurial university typically focuses on commercialisation of research and the establishment of TTOs to cater to entrepreneurial activities such as patents, spin-offs and licensing (Clark 1998;Etzkowitz et al. 2000;Krücken and Meier 2006). The analysis of TTOs' role and activities has received considerable attention in the literature (Brescia, Colombo, and Landoni 2016;Compagnucci and Spigarelli 2020;Schoen, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, and Henkel 2014;Siegel and Wright 2015;Siegel, Veugelers, and Wright 2007), perhaps because the emergence of TTOs and the number of patents are easily quantifiable, which is not the case with other types of engagement. The model has been criticised for its narrow focus on commercialisation, among other issues, because of the sole emphasis on organisational structures and the institutionalisation of commercial practices (Mowery and Sampat 2005). ...
... These reputations can be leveraged to build TTO-industry-researcher relationships, depending on managerial effectiveness (Friedman & Silberman, 2003;Wu et al., 2015), personal and professional networks (Siegel et al., 2003b), and the quality of face-to-face interactions (Bruneel et al., 2010). With respect to resources, licenses, patents and invention disclosures are positively correlated to attributes such as TTO age, number of employees, and research expenditure (see Rothaermel et al., 2007;Thursby & Kemp, 2002;Siegel et al., 2003aSiegel et al., , 2007Ustundag et al., 2011). Internal and organisational practices have also been well researched, for example the effectiveness of managerial practices including hiring, reward systems and incentives (Siegel et al., 2003b;Link et al., 2007). ...
Technology transfer offices (TTOs) play an increasingly important role in universities, supporting researchers in translating science knowledge into commercially and socially valuable outcomes. However, the literature is limited regarding how TTOs support the technology transfer process. This study contributes deeper insight into the role of TTOs in facilitating knowledge transfer outcomes. A case study of life science commercialization in Australasian universities drew on depth interviews with senior TTO managers and industry experts, on longitudinal participant observation within a life science intermediary business to inform about supply side elements, and on secondary data. The findings emphasise the effects of wider institutional change on quintuple helix (5H) stakeholders, i.e., the environment, society, government, universities, and industry. Financialization and competition places growing demands on universities for commercializable intellectual property (IP) production. In response, TTOs have built competencies in translational engagement (trust and reputation building and boundary spanning) and value co-creation (service quality management and de-risking). Those competencies translate to a five-stage process of technology transfer facilitation: (1) Identifying, (2) assessing, (3) protecting, (4) promoting and (5) profiting. In the complex context of life science innovation, innovation networks benefit from investment in university outreach, stakeholder relationship building, tax credits, and fund matching with transnational corporations. To ensure optimal social and commercial outcomes independent oversight of the process should be maintained, by representatives from all 5H stakeholders.
... Given this, the third hypothesis According to the academic literature, there are cultural factors that promote transfer processes. Authors such as (Siegel et al., 2007) detected that the culture of the organization and the incentives help capture the collaboration of researchers towards the technology commercialization processes. On the other hand, (O'Shea et al., 2005) consider that participation in royalties or profits positively affects technology transfer. ...
The formal university technology transfer (TTU) in Colombia can contribute significantly to the country’s economic development. Based on the Theory of Resources and Capacities, this paper investigates the determinants of transfer in Colombian public and private universities. For this, we used structural equations methodology from data collected through a survey of 20 Colombian universities. The results of the estimates empirically confirm the significance of the financial, commercial, cultural, and human dimensions in the technology transfer process. Among the main factors that positively influence the TTU are: 1. the importance of external financial resources, 2. having a technological portfolio, 3. the time that transfer activities have been carried out, and 4. the people in charge’s experience.: The study shows us that it is necessary to strengthen policies within universities and improve their articulation with firms to achieve more successful technology transfer processes.
... This knowledge group constitutes an important knowledge base and theoretical basis for KTUIC research. Knowledge group ③ University TTOs TTOs are primarily responsible for the protection of university created intellectual property (IP) and the management of the commercialization process [44], [45]. Since the 1990s, when TTOs began to emerge in American universities, related research quickly became a focus of scholarly attention. ...
Knowledge transfer in university-industry collaboration (KTUIC) has been a hot issue of concern in recent years. Based on 874 articles published in the core collection of Web of Science, this paper conducts an in-depth bibliometric and visual analysis in terms of literature distribution, cooperation network, co-citation, knowledge base, and research hotspots analysis. The results show that the number of annual publications has shown an approximate exponential growth in the past decades. The UK is the most critical node in cross-border cooperation. Alessandro Muscio, with 11 publications, and Henry Etzkowitz, with 793 citations, are the most prolific and cited authors respectively. Research Policy has the highest frequency of citations. The knowledge base of KTUIC includes UIC and knowledge transfer, basic theories of U-I relationships, university TTOs, Bayh-Dole Act and university patenting, and individuals in university technology transfer. Research hotspots mainly focus on the related issues of third mission and entrepreneurial universities. Additionally, we also propose the future research agenda of KTUIC from the perspective of five knowledge bases. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the development status and core issues in KTUIC, and offer valuable guidance for future research directions.
... In recent years, enablers and barriers to technology transfer have received particular attention (Barros et al., 2020;Bengoa et al., 2021). However, while research mostly focused on single policies or organizational measures to overcome these barriers (e.g., ibid.; Grimaldi et al., 2011;Siegel et al., 2007), less is known about institutional factors in the systems of innovation that affect knowledge and technology transfer. Especially in less open economies like former and present socialist states, the increased barriers to technology transfer impact the extent of knowledge generation and diffusion, calling for alternative channels of knowledge sourcing (Wang et al., 2017). ...
This paper provides empirical evidence on a special case of restricted technology transfer: the German Democratic Republic (GDR) characterized by a socialist innovation system with a supply-side-oriented technology-push model encompassing intellectual property rights protection partially distinct from the one employed in most market economies. We exploit the natural experiment setting of the formerly separated regions in Germany and compare the productivity effects of knowledge generation, accumulation, and diffusion in the GDR with those of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) between 1970 and 1989. By applying a Cobb–Douglas production function to original primary and harmonized productivity data and manually cleaned patent data, we show that knowledge generation, accumulation and diffusion contributed to sectoral productivity in the GDR similarly compared to the FRG, despite the institutional misalignments in the socialist innovation system. We explain these findings and provide implications for present organizations with regard to incentive schemes for patenting, the support of personal creativity and education, and alternative technology transfer mechanisms in case of institutional barriers to innovation.
... Technology commercialization begins with basic research activities and technology development to technology transfer, then the next stage is the commercialization process towards product launch, the last stage is the commercialization process until it succeeds in becoming a business ( Figure 1). So that efforts to increase the commercialization of higher education research results have been carried out in almost all universities in the world by establishing a technology transfer office (TTO) to manage the commercialization of new technology (Siegel et al, 2007, Dalmarco et al, 2011, Vinig and Lips, 2015, Rogers et al, 2000, Phan and Siegel 2006, Harlow, 2017, DeVol et al. 2017. A technology transfer office (TTO) is a type of organization that assists research organizations in managing their intellectual assets in a way that facilitates their transformation into benefits for society (Carlsson, 2002). ...
... Para llevar una invención generada en una universidad a comercializarse en un mercado se deben sortear un cierto número de obstáculos, de acuerdo con Siegel et al., (2007). Primero, la invención debe llevarse a un estado de desarrollo en el que pueda ser validado en un entorno real, lo cual implica más recursos y la inversión de tiempo por parte del investigador principal. ...
La transferencia de tecnología generada en las universidades hacia el mercado a través de los mecanismos formales como el licenciamiento o la creación de spin-off generalmente encuentra varias dificultades. Este proceso de transferencia comprende diferentes agentes con intereses diversos e incluso contrarios y abarca varias etapas que deben ser sorteadas para lograr realizarla con éxito. Por esta razón muchas universidades tienen muy pocos casos de éxito para mostrar,
incluso cuando tienen una vocación hacia la investigación aplicada y realizan muchos proyectos en compañía de la industria, como en el caso que se presenta en este trabajo. Frente a esta problemática se buscó con este trabajo aportar hacia el entendimiento del proceso de transferencia, específicamente identificando los principales factores que inciden en el logro de una transferencia de tecnología satisfactoria. Para esto se realizó una revisión de la literatura sobre factores que
inciden en el éxito en la transferencia de tecnologías generadas en la universidad, a partir de la cual se construyó una lista exhaustiva de factores, los cuales fueron agrupados de acuerdo a sus similitudes, lo que dio como resultado una lista de 40 factores que se clasificaron en 6 categorías: tecnología, inventor, mercado y financieros, desarrollo socioeconómico, propiedad intelectual e institución. Esta lista de factores abarca el proceso de transferencia a través de sus diferentes etapas y distintos agentes, y es propuesta como un insumo para la evaluación ex ante en los procesos de transferencia llevados a cabo entre universidades y entidades receptoras, interesadas en transferir y adoptar tecnología.
... Academic and applied research capabilities (Lee & Jung, 2021 • Improving cognitive and organizational dimensions (Villani et al., 2016) • Serving as an 'intermediary' between university scientist and firms, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists (Siegel et al., 2007) • Suitable business models that become catalyst and orchestrator (Baglieri et al., 2018) • A properly organized and staffed TTO (Bradley et al., 2013) • Organizational form and strategies for establishing intellectual property rights and in securing revenues from these rights (Bercovitz et al., 2001) • Marketing activities to tackling weak links between academia and industry (Colyvas et al., 2002) • Capability and experience of TTOs (Jung & Kim, 2018) • Experienced technology licensing officers in industry network (Shane et al., 2015) • Employees with research-oriented capabilities (Soares & Torkomian, 2021) • Putting external resource providers in contact with scientists who committed to commercialization (O'Gorman et al., 2008) • Business development capabilities (Lockett & Wright, 2005) • Experienced and expert staff teams and universities with clearly established rules for creating academic startups and having higher patenting records (González-Pernía et al., 2013) • Role in supporting IP, research and spin-off (Brescia et al., 2016) Role of University's Incubator ...
p>Technology commercialization in universities which consists of three phases, namely basic research, commercialization feasibility, and commercialization runs non-linearly and goes through licensing and spin-off creation. To achieve commercialization success, there are eight influencing factors, namely academic entrepreneur, role of technology, availability of market, availability of finance, intermediaries' support (i.e. University Technology Transfer Office (UTTO), university's incubator, and proof of concept center), role of collaborative research center, policy support, and regional infrastructure and environment. Meanwhile, the existing management theories that discuss the commercialization of technology in universities mostly use a resource perspective such as Resource-Based View (RBV), resource orchestration theory, and dynamic capabilities with university and spin-offs as unit of analysis. This literature study provides several recommendations for future studies. First, it needs to expand the analysis not limited to licensing and spin-off, and second, it is suggested to develop a resource perspective by enriching what dimensions influence the success of a technology commercialization in universities or provide alternative new management theories in understanding technology commercialization in university.</p
Problem setting. The definition of subjects of scientific and scientific and technical activity in Ukraine is an important aspect of the legal regulation of the scientific process, which remains insufficiently regulated. The lack of a single category to designate all natural persons as subjects of scientific activity, such as graduate students, scientists, scientists, etc., not only creates legal uncertainty, but also complicates the regulation of the rights and obligations of different categories of researchers, including the issue of the legal status of graduate students , who are at the stage of professional training, requires special attention that the status significantly affects the legal relations regarding the results of their scientific research, as well as the possibility of integrating these results into practical activity In addition, an important aspect is the distinction between the rights and responsibilities of scientists and scientists, since the level of their influence on scientific and technological progress varies significantly depending on experience, qualifications and the stage of a scientific career. This issue, as well as the theoretical definition of the generalized category of scientists for individuals, are relevant for ensuring the effective commercialization of scientific developments, as well as for the proper organization of scientific activity in general. Analysis of recent researches and publications. Next foreign scientists as Andrea Geuna and Antonio Muscio, Barry Bozeman, Henry Etzkowitz, David Siegel, Michel Perckmann, Vincenzo Tartari, Martin McKelvey, Robert Weugelers and Mike Rice studied the problems of implementing the results of scientific and scientific and technical activities in various aspects. Domestic researchers are also actively working on the legal regulation of scientific and scientific-technical activities in Ukraine. Goncharov V. M., Egorov I. AND. and Zhukovich I. A., Semenyuk O. P., Lyubchych A. M., Hlybko S. V., Kresina I. O., Dobryanska N.O., Klimova H. P. and others. Purpose of research is to analyze the legal regulation of scientific and technical activities, focusing on the categorization of researchers and their rights, particularly regarding intellectual property and the commercialization of scientific results. It examines the roles of various academic levels, from candidates of science to senior researchers, in shaping the legal status and protection of their work. Article’s main body. The article explores the legal aspects of scientific and technical activities, focusing on the roles and responsibilities of researchers at different levels, such as candidates of science, doctors of philosophy, and senior academics. It addresses the categorization of these researchers and the importance of defining their rights, particularly in the context of intellectual property. The article also delves into the issue of commercialization and the legal implications of turning scientific results into marketable technologies. Additionally, it analyzes how these factors are regulated under Ukrainian law, with references to both national and international legal frameworks. Conclusions and prospects for the development. The article underscores the need for clearer legal frameworks regarding the roles of individual researchers and the protection of intellectual property in Ukraine. It suggests that strengthening these regulations, along with fostering academic-industry partnerships, will facilitate the commercialization of research outcomes. Future developments should integrate international best practices to support innovation and enhance Ukraine’s position in the global knowledge economy.
This study reveals that the strength of ties among academic and corporate researchers who are subject to institutional distance depends on the triggers for tie formation through trust. As strong ties are suitable for the exchange of complex knowledge, they are expected to contribute to knowledge transfer and subsequent innovative knowledge creation. With data from 508 researchers in Japan, this study reveals that the most common trigger is meeting at academic conferences, but ties formed through this trigger are weak. In contrast, ties formed during school days or past work are long-lasting strong ties, and introductions by peer researchers form strong ties from the short-term perspective. Interestingly, ties formed through introductions by industry–academia intermediary organisations are found to be strong in the short term but weak in the long term. Based on these results, this study suggests management and policy that contribute to the formation of strong ties.
In this chapter we explore individual-level characteristics in relation to knowledge share. Although individuals are at the heart of KS as engines of knowledge production, diffusion and socialization, they have been given less attention in the literature on technology and knowledge transfer and in the KS domain, which has instead devoted more room to organizational mechanisms and policy/environmental factors.
Technology commercialization has become an increasingly important activity for European and U.S. universities. Among the reasons for this importance have been declining government financial support for public universities, greater accountability to funding agencies, and increased expectations for commercialization revenues. Combined with recent economic uncertainty, the search for additional revenue sources has accentuated the need to better involve faculty in successful technology commercialization efforts. Thus, university administrators and technology managers face challenges in attracting, engaging, and retaining faculty participation in this effort. This paper reviews the relevant literature to understand how tenure and promotion policies can incentivize or disincentivize faculty members from pursuing technology commercialization projects. Prior research has focused primarily on the determinants of performance and benchmarking issues while faculty career path choices have been neglected. We address this gap in the literature by considering technology commercialization, faculty choice, and institutional policies in tandem. We conducted a systematic review of relevant literature on faculty involvement in technology commercialization and identified incentives and impediments for pursuing technology commercialization. Next we developed research hypotheses drawn from the literature review to assess faculty attitudes and activities, and their career development stage, based on the literature. Data collected through surveys will be used to test the hypotheses. We propose that the choice to participate in technology commercialization is a risk-payoff decision for faculty that depends on their career stage and subject matter area of work. As the faculty member becomes more secure in their position, such as tenured, the perceived risk of participation declines while the perceived reward value of incentives increase. As this perception changes due to career stage progress, we expect that faculty will be more inclined to participate in technology commercialization activities. We discuss how choices involving technology commercialization projects relate to a faculty career path and institutional technology commercialization policies, and how these policies are used to promote faculty participation in technology commercialization projects.
This chapter explores Think's pathway for translating theoretical research into research prototype and market-ready applications within the context of smart objects and IoT products. It discusses the pivotal role of incubators like PoliHub in nurturing technology startups and delves into the process of bridging the gap between academic research and commercial viability. The discourse reports on Thingk’s unique approach to product design, adopting an interdisciplinary and integrated perspective.
In recent decades, entrepreneurship and innovation have emerged as primary drivers of economic development and employment generation. Universities play a significant role in nurturing entrepreneurs and disseminating entrepreneurial culture, while also providing diverse resources and capabilities to support entrepreneurial endeavors. The selection of the university-based entrepreneurial ecosystem (UBEE) as the focal point of this study underscores its strategic and scholarly importance, emphasizing the pivotal role universities play in promoting entrepreneurship and innovation. The fundamental goal of this research is to evaluate the research topics of significant nations, institutions, and authors in the UBEE research using CiteSpace software and the Web of Science dataset. The cooperation network and cooperative contents among them are also studied in more detail in this article. Finding the authors, institutions, and nations with the most influence may also be done using the study of the frequency of citations. Author keyword frequency analysis and co-occurrence analysis are used to investigate the most popular themes right now and forecast where development will go in the future. This study provides a useful perspective for the related researchers who intend to do further research on the entrepreneurial ecosystem at universities.
La misión emprendedora en las Universidades ha provocado un cambio de paradigma, antes se pensaba en “la investigación en la universidad”. Ahora, esta investigación necesariamente debe estar asociada a su transferencia al medio contribuyendo al desarrollo del territorio. Esta transferencia puede discurrir de diferentes maneras. Esta investigación se centra en analizar a las spin-off universitarias, las que, en su mayoría, se incluyen dentro de las Empresas de Base Tecnológica (EBT), cuyo rasgo diferenciador de competitividad es el uso intensivo del conocimiento científico y técnico. El objetivo es identificar las fases o etapas de las EBT universitarias, las necesidades de gestión y los sistemas de control de gestión para su mejor desempeño. La investigación es descriptiva, con una metodología cualitativa, abordándose dos casos de spin-off universitarias surgidas de una Entidad argentina de gestión pública. Los resultados arrojan que, en la Universidad seleccionada como caso de estudio, se evidencia la presencia de distintos factores reconocidos por la literatura como impulsores de la transferencia tecnológica, en tanto que, en las dos spin-off analizadas se identificaron las etapas dentro del ciclo de vida propuestas para las EBT por autores de referencia y los sistemas de control de gestión utilizados para su planificación y control.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine the evolution of the literature on technology transfer and culture, identifying the main contents of the current body of knowledge encompassing culture and technology transfer (TT), thus contributing to a better understanding of the relationship between TT and culture based on bibliometric and multivariate statistical analyses of the relevant body of literature.
Design/methodology/approach
Data for this study were collected from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database. Based on a bibliometric analysis and in-depth empirical review of major TT subjects, supported by multivariate statistical analyses, over 200 articles were systematically reviewed. The use of these methods decreases biases since it adds rigor to the subjective evaluation of the relevant literature base.
Findings
The exploratory analysis of the articles shows that first, culture is an important topic for TT in the literature; second, the publication data demonstrate a great dynamism regarding the different contexts in which culture is covered in the TT literature and third, in the last couple of years the interest of stimulating a TT culture in the context of universities has continuously grown.
Research limitations/implications
This study focuses on culture in the context of TT and identifies the main contents of the body of knowledge in the area. Based on this first insight, obtained through more detailed bibliometric and multivariate analyses, it is now important to develop and validate a theory on TT culture, emphasizing the dimensions of organizational culture, entrepreneurial culture and a culture of openness that fosters economic and societal spillovers, and to link those dimensions to the performance of TT activities.
Practical implications
From the practical point of view, managers in companies and universities should be aware of the importance of identifying those dimensions of culture that contribute most to the success of their TT activities.
Originality/value
Despite several literature reviews on the TT topic, no studies focusing specifically on culture in the context of TT have been developed. Therefore, given the multifaceted nature of the research field, this study aims to expand and to deepen the analysis of the TT literature by focusing on culture as an important and commonly cited element influencing TT performance.
Rekabet gücünün sürdürülebilir olabilmesi için yeni teknolojilerin üretilmesi ve bu yeni teknolojiler ile yeni üretimler yapılması gerekmektedir. Teknoparklar bu tarz fırsatların sağlanmasında en uygun ortamlardır. Bu çalışmada üniversite-sanayi işbirliğinin en etkili olduğu mecraların başında gelen teknoparkların öneminin anlaşılması amaçlanmıştır. Üç bölümden oluşan çalışmanın birinci bölümünde literatür taraması yapılmış, konuyla ilgili çalışmalara değinilmiştir. Kavramsal çerçevede KOBİ, girişim, Ar-Ge, teknoloji geliştirme kavramları, bu kavramların önemi ve kapsamına yer verilmiştir. İkinci bölümde teknoparklar, teknoparkların Türkiye ve dünyadaki uygulamalarından örnekler, teknoparkların sağladığı avantajlar, rekabet ve önemi üzerinde durulmuştur. Üçüncü bölümde Sakarya Teknokent'te yer alan bilişim sektöründe faaliyet gösteren işletmelerden mülakat yöntemi ile elde edilen veriler analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmada, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme tekniğiyle, Firmaların Sakarya Teknokent'in avantajlarından yararlanma oranı, Ar-Ge faaliyetlerinde Teknokent'in etkisi, KOBİ'lere sunulabilecek uygulamalar, çalışmalarda karşılaşılan problemler ve çözüm önerileri belirlenmiş; açık uçlu sorulara verilen yanıtlar ve bunların değerlendirmelerine yer verilmiştir. Sonuç ve öneriler bölümünde, araştırmada elde edilen bulgulardan ve görüşmeci yanıtlarından hareketle teknopark uygulamalarına yönelik önerilerde bulunulmuştur. KOBİ, Teknopark, Rekabet, Sakarya Teknokent
In order for the competitive power to be sustainable, it is necessary to produce new technologies and make new productions with these new technologies. Technoparks are the most suitable environments for providing such opportunities. In this study, it is aimed to understand the importance of technoparks, which is one of the most effective channels of university-industry cooperation. In the first part, which consists of three parts, a literature review was made and studies on the subject were mentioned. In the conceptual framework, the concepts of SME, enterprise, R&D, technology development, the importance and scope of these concepts are included. In the second part, technoparks, examples of applications of technoparks in Turkey and in the world, advantages of technoparks, competition and importance are emphasized. In the third part, the data obtained by the interview method from the companies operating in the IT sector in Sakarya Technopolis were analyzed. In the research, the rate of companies benefiting from the advantages of Sakarya Teknokent, the effect of Teknokent in R&D activities, applications that can be presented to SMEs, the problems encountered in the studies and solution suggestions were determined with the semi-structured interview technique; Answers to open-ended questions and their evaluations are included. In the conclusion and suggestions section, suggestions were made for technopark applications based on the findings obtained in the research and the answers of the interviewers. SME, Technopark, Competition, Sakarya Teknokent
Technological innovation and preoccupation with new markets through technological innovation have become critical factors in achieving success in the global market. Currently, companies cannot develop and commercialize all technologies. Therefore, the importance of technology transfers is rapidly increasing. Technology transfer is a crucial strategy adopted by organizations to remain innovative and competitive. However, Korea’s technology transfer rate is only 37.9%. In particular, the technology transfer rate from universities to companies is lower than that from government-funded research institutes in Korea. Although the fundamental approach for resolving barriers to technology transfer have been studied, previous research has been conducted from a narrow definition of technology transfer. Furthermore, previous research has focused on analyzing the success factors of technology transfer, presenting technology transfer processes, or conducting case studies. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a technology donor diagnosis framework based on CSFs (Critical Success Factors) to eliminate obstacles to technology transfers. To lower the barriers to technology transfers, it is necessary to develop a strategy for a successful technology transfer based on the diagnosis of technology donors. This study develops a diagnosis framework for universities from the perspective of technology donors, implements and tests the framework using case studies, and proposes strategies for each stage of technology transfer growth. The framework is able to assess multidimensional perspectives, because CSFs and PMs were extracted based on BSC. Furthermore, by comparing the perspectives score of technology donors in different universities, technology donors can identify the areas in which each university is lacking in its current situation. Multidimensional diagnosis and aggregation score of technology donors offer to extract optimal CSFs for technology transfer activation for each growth stage.
This chapter presents a Technology Transfer Model proposed for the Autonomous University of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico's most important industrial city. The model includes the key managerial, linkage, technological, and research elements required for university–industry (U-I) technology transfer. The convenience of this model is that it takes advantage of the accumulated capabilities in Ciudad Juarez universities to improve the products and processes in manufacturing firms located in the city using technology and knowledge transfer, which could lead to the economic and technological development of the region.
The successful transformation of science and technology (S&T) achievements is relies on the evaluation of their value by the stakeholders in the S&T market. Both excessively high prices set by the patent holder and excessively low prices offered by potential buyers can hinder the successful transfer of S&T achievements. This study, based on the Triple Helix Innovation Theory and Technology Transfer Theory, empirically examines the factors that influence the price of patent technology transfer, using a sample of 10 key Chinese universities from 2018 to 2022. Research found that the inherent quality of patents and the external market environment both have a positive and significant impact on the price of patented technology transfer in universities. Furthermore, government support plays a significant role in moderating the effect of patent quality and market transaction factors on the price of patent technology transfer in universities. Additionally, there is industry heterogeneity in the pricing of patent technology transfer. Therefore, the policy focus for promoting patent technology transfer in Chinese universities should be placed on enhancing patent quality, standardizing the technology transfer process, improving patent information disclosure, and strengthening government support to effectively implement policy assistance.
Bu çalışmanın amacı teknopark ve teknoloji transfer ofislerinin KOBİ’lerin sürdürülebilirliğindeki rolünü analiz etmek ve KOBİ’lerin bu süreci verimli bir şekilde ilerletebilmeleri için uygun bir yol haritası ortaya koymaktır . Bu çalışmada Düzce Teknopark bünyesindeki KOBİ’ler ve yönetim ofisinde çalışan uzman personeller ile görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda KOBİ’lerin sürdürülebilirliğine yönelik destekler ve teknopark-teknoloji transfer ofisi yapılanmasının KOBİ’lerin sürdürülebilirliğindeki rolü incelenmektedir. Verilerin toplanması aşamasında bire bir görüşme tekniği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini Düzce Teknopark ve Düzce Teknoloji transfer ofisinin hizmet sağladığı KOBİ’ler ve yönetim ofisi uzmanları oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışma sonucunda teknopark ve teknoloji transfer ofisinin destek sağladığı firmaların finansal sürdürülebilirliğine ve personel istihdamı sürdürülebilirliğinde sorunlar yaşadıkları görülmektedir. Ayrıca ulusal ve uluslararası fon mekanizmalarına erişim noktasında firmaların problemler yaşadığı ortaya çıkmıştır. KOBİ’lerin sürdürülebilirlik düzeyini arttırmak için izledikleri politikalar incelenmiş ve bu süreçten daha fazla verim alabilmeleri adına yol haritaları ortaya konulmuştur.
The literature on entrepreneurship and technology transfer highlights several factors that impact the creation of university Spin-Offs. However, there is a limited body of research that specifically explores the impact of university-industry collaborations on the performance creation of these spinoffs. This study aims to fill this gap by examining the effects of university-industry collaborations on the creation of Spin-Offs from two perspectives: the number of university collaborations with different companies and the number of previous collaborations between the same university-industry dyad. The research employs joint patents as a source to measure the university-industry collaborations and statistical methods to empirically examine the impact of these collaborations on Spin-Off creation. The study is based on data from 108 universities between the years 2014 and 2017. The findings of this study reveal that both the number of collaborations and specially the presence of previous collaborations between the university and industry have a positive effect on the creation of Spin-Offs. These results suggest that universities and companies should consider these findings when formulating their strategies or policies for technology transfer and innovation management by encouraging university-industry collaborations.
Universities have not always played a leading role in the economic development of regions through entrepreneurship. This is because they have evolved over time from being organizations dedicated solely to teaching and research. Previous studies have focused on how universities adopted an entrepreneurial orientation. This chapter explores the pathways to develop entrepreneurial capabilities influenced by context and stakeholders. This chapter is based on semi-structured interviews from different actors involved in the universities’ re-building of entrepreneurial capabilities allocated in Belgium, Colombia, Ecuador, and Uganda. The chapter proposes an interesting view of university entrepreneurial capabilities.
This paper investigates how university spinout companies develop. The capabilities framework is used to investigate the development of nine different spinout companies. Each venture is found to move through a number of distinct phases and to come up against "generic" problems whilst attempting to move from one phase to another. We identify four critical junctures that spinout companies need to overcome to succeed. The entrepreneur or the entrepreneurial team need to possess key entrepreneurial capabilities to overcome these critical junctures.
The increase of entrepreneurial activity within academia has raised concerns that the research orientation of universities might become ‘contaminated’ by the application-oriented needs of industry. Empirical evidence on this concern is scarce and ambiguous. We examine whether entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia can be reconciled. Our empirical findings (KU Leuven, Belgium) suggest that both activities do not hamper each other; engagement in entrepreneurial activities coincides with increased publication outputs, without affecting the nature of the publications involved. As resources increase, this interaction becomes more significant, pointing towards a Matthew-effect.We finally suggest that balancing both activities further depends on the institutional policies deployed.
A study explored entrepreneurship in theresearch university. The data were collected in 2 surveys conducted in 1985 -one of a sample of life scientists located in major research universities andthe other of key administrators in the same universities. Five types ofacademic entrepreneurship were identified: 1. engaging in externally fundedresearch, 2. earning supplemental income, 3. gaining industry support foruniversity research, 4. obtaining patents or generating trade secrets, and 5.forming or holding equity in private companies based on a faculty member's ownresearch. Individual attitudes and characteristics were the most importantpredictors of large-scale science and supplemental income, while local groupnorms played a more important role in predicting active involvement incommercialization. (Publisher abstract)
This paper examines the influences of university organizational structure on technology transfer performance. The analysis treats the organizational structure of the technology-transfer office as an independent variable that accounts, in part, for measured differences in inter-institutional patenting, licensing, and sponsored research activities. We derive and investigate three hypotheses that link attributes of organizational form – information processing capacity, coordination capability and incentive alignment – to technology transfer outcomes. A detailed analysis of three major research universities – Johns Hopkins University, Pennsylvania State University, and Duke University – provides evidence of the existence of alternative organizational structures. The data also suggest that these organizational capabilities result in differences in technology transfer activity.
This paper examines the role of offices of technology transfer (OTT) in 12 U.S. universities in 1998 in commercializing research
results in the form of patents, licenses, and start-ups of new companies. We study the organization and place of OTTs within
the university structure, the process of technology transfer, and the staffing and funding of the office. Data were collected
through a mail questionnaire followed up through telephone interviews. We also conducted a statistical analysis of data for
170 U.S. universities, hospitals, and research institutes for the period 1991–1996. Our findings suggest that technology transfer
from universities to the commercial sector needs to be understood in its broader context. The primary purpose of a technology
transfer program is for the university to assist its researchers in disseminating research results for the public good. Success
in this endeavor is only partially reflected in income generated for the university or the number of business start-ups. The
degree of success depends not only on the nature of the interface between the university and the business community but also
on the receptivity in the surrounding community as well as the culture, organization, and incentives within the universities
themselves.
The success of business incubators and technology parks in university settings is often determined by how well technology is transferred from the labs to their startup firms. University technology transfer offices (UTTOs) function as “technology intermediaries” in fulfilling this role. Yet, entrepreneurship theory and research on the role of the UTTO in business incubation and new venture formation is sparse. To move the research along, we use grounded theory to build a framework to address two questions: (a) Which UTTOs' structures and licensing strategies are most conducive to new venture formation; and (b) how are the various UTTOs' structures and licensing strategies correlated with each other. Our findings reveal a complex set of relationships between UTTO structure and strategies, new venture formation, and business incubation.Based on interviews with 128 UTTO directors, we show that whereas for-profit UTTO structures are positively related to new venture formation, traditional university and nonprofit UTTO structures are more likely to correlate with the presence of university-based business incubators. Licensing-for-equity strategy is positively related to new venture formation while sponsored research licensing strategy is negatively related. Interestingly, the licensing-for-cash strategy, the most prevalent transfer strategy, is least correlated to new venture formation. A content analysis of UTTO mission statements also revealed an overemphasis on royalty income and an underemphasis on entrepreneurship. The paper concludes with a discussion that outlines some of the implications and limitations of our model.
The increase of entrepreneurial activity within academia has raised concerns that the research orientation of universities might become 'contaminated' by the application-oriented needs of industry. Empirical evidence on this concern is scarce and ambiguous. We examine whether entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia can be reconciled. Our empirical findings (K.U.Leuven, Belgium) suggest that both activities do not hamper each other; engagement in entrepreneurial activities coincides with increased publication outputs, without affecting the nature of the publications involved. As resources increase, this interaction becomes more significant, pointing towards a Matthew-effect. We finally suggest that balancing both activities further depends on the institutional policies deployed.
Proponents of the Bayh-Dole Act argue that unless universities have the right to license patentable inventions, many results from federally funded research would never be transferred to industry. Our survey of U.S. research universities supports this view. Results point to the embryonic state of most technologies licensed and the need for inventor cooperation in the commercialization process. Thus, for most university inventions, there is a moral hazard problem with regard to inventor effort. Our theoretical analysis shows that for such inventions, development would not occur unless the inventor's income is tied to the licensee's output by payments such as royalties or equity. Sponsored research can also be critical to commercialization, but it alone does not solve the inventor's moral hazard problem.
This article provides an inductive empirical investigation into how university high-technology spinout companies develop. A university spinout (USO) is defined as a venture founded by employees of the university around a core technological innovation which had initially been developed at the university. Data were collected using in-depth face-to-face and telephone interviews with representatives from the nine USO, as well as each of their financial investors and seven associated universities over the twelve-month period from July 2001 to July 2002. Critical junctures refers to a complex problem that occurs at a point along a new high-technology venture's expansion path preventing it from achieving the transition from one development phase to the next. Critical junctures occur precisely because of the conflict between a USO venture's existing level and type of resources, capabilities and social capital, and those required to perform in the proceeding phase of development. As a result of the idiosyncratic development of each USO through each development stage, deficient social capital, resource weaknesses and inadequate internal capabilities were all dependent upon the unique evolutionary path each USO followed.
Surveys in 1988, 1992 and 1994 of enterprises created by scientists show that: these spin-off enterprises from research laboratories are robust, although they do not necessarily lead to job creation; a precondition for the development of these firms is that they establish networks of different players; firms that increased their co-operation arrangements with various laboratories were the most successful; it is important to integrate clients from the innovation design phase; and there is a crucial role for public funding during a firm's start-up and initial development stage.
This is a book about the formation, development, and success or failure of new high technology companies, focusing on those that grew under the auspices of entrepreneurs from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Boston at the end of World War Two. Trained in high-technology in MIT's labs and academic departments or in the local industrial marvel that became known as the "Route 128 phenomenon", these entrepreneurs took their technical and innate skills with them to found their own new companies. The book is based on extensive empirical research on these firms conducted over a period of twenty-five years and much previously written work on the subject, and is the culmination of such earlier work and synthesized findings. It centers on people, technology, money, and markets, and its main goal is to provide insights that may eventually contribute to fulfilling other entrepreneurs' dreams and other communities' hopes. The book chapters comprise three connected sections - treating birth, transition and growth, and success or failure.
We develop a model that clari…es the respective advantages and disad- vantages of academic and private-sector research. Our model assumes full protection of intellectual property rights at all stages of the development process, and hence does not rely on lack of appropriability or spillovers to generate a rationale for academic research. Instead, we focus on control- rights considerations, and argue that the fundamental tradeobetween academia and the private sector is one of creative control versus directed- ness. By serving as a precommitment mechanism that allows scientists to freely pursue their own interests, academia can be indispensable for early-stage research. At the same time, the private sector's ability to direct scientists towards higher-payoactivities makes it more attractive for later-stage research.
Analyzes the effects of entrepreneurial team dynamics onthe performance of academic spinoffs. First, the definition of entrepreneurialteams is offered, and the link between team structure and performance isexamined. Next, data from a detailed field study of ten academic spinoffs inFlanders are used to explore the central research question. The data indicate that some researchers who are actively involved in thefirst phase of the spinoff process (i.e., market opportunity recognition)choose to stay with the parent firm instead of completing the spinoff process.Other researchers become impatient as the spinoff attempts to prove itsviability and leave the project. Once the spinoff has proven its viability, theremaining researchers stay and take the spinoff to maturity. In other cases,surrogate entrepreneurs are attracted to set up the venture. As a whole, the findings suggest that a team's heterogeneity changes as itevolves through the various stages of the spinoff process. Although newadditions to the team bring unique experiences to the spinoff, they generallyshare the initial team members' view of the business of launching spinoffs.(SAA)
This paper develops five alternative structural ‘models’ for formal efforts aimed at spinning off new companies from universities, government laboratories, and other research and development organizations. In various ways the models combine the roles of the technology originator, the entrepreneur, the R&D organization itself, and the venture investor. The paper also presents the policies and structures of technology commercialization operations from investigations at eight R&D organizations in the United States and the United Kingdom. The data indicate that a R&D organization operating in an environment where venture capital and entrepreneurs are readily available (e.g., MIT and Stanford) can appropriately: (1) exercise a low degree of selectivity in choosing technologies for spin-off creation, and (2) provide a low level of support during the spin-off process. The spin-off process is more difficult in environments where venture capital and entrepreneurs are scarce (e.g., ARCH) and mechanisms for high-selectivity and a high level of support must be in place by the R&D organization to compensate for this scarcity.
There has been a rapid rise in commercial knowledge transfers from universities to practitioners or university–industry technology transfer (UITT), through licensing agreements, research joint ventures, and start-ups. The purpose of this study was to analyze the UITT process and its outcomes. Based on 98 structured interviews of key UITT stakeholders (i.e., university administrators, academic and industry scientists, business managers, and entrepreneurs) at five research universities in two regions of the US, we conclude that these stakeholders have different perspectives on the desired outputs of UITT. More importantly, numerous barriers to effective UITT were identified, including culture clashes, bureaucratic inflexibility, poorly designed reward systems, and ineffective management of university technology transfer offices (TTOs). Based on this qualitative evidence, we provide numerous recommendations for improving the UITT process.
The commercialization of university research has become an increasingly important issue, given concerns regarding licensing and the university's desire to maximize the returns to intellectual property (IP). In this paper, we assess the impact of university resources and routines/capabilities on the creation of spin-out companies. We find that both the number of spin-out companies created and the number of spin-out companies created with equity investment are significantly positively associated with expenditure on intellectual property protection, the business development capabilities of technology transfer offices and the royalty regime of the university. These results highlight the importance not just of resource stocks, but also of developing appropriate capabilities of technology transfer officers in spinning-out companies. The results suggest that universities and policy-makers need to devote attention to the training and recruitment of technology officers with the broad base of commercial skills.
This study extends innovation speed theory by empirically linking the antecedents and outcomes of technology commercialization at universities. Assessing university technology transfer offices (UTTOs) in the U.S., we found that the faster UTTOs can commercialize patent-protected technologies, the greater their licensing revenues streams and the more new ventures they spin off. Furthermore, using commercialization time as a surrogate for innovation speed, we identify several determinants of speed. That is, UTTO resources and the competency in identifying licensees are related to commercialization time. Also, the participation of faculty-inventors in the licensing process is a critical determinant of commercialization time. Illustrating that innovation speed is an antecedent of performance as well as a desired outcome in and of itself, provides support for innovation speed theory.
We consider the managerial and policy implications of the rise of spin-offs at public research institutions (PRIs), based on a knowledge-based view (KBV) of the firm. This framework highlights the importance of knowledge in the creation and development of spin-offs. We argue that in order to understand the development of spin-offs, researchers should focus on “knowledge gaps” these new ventures encounter. Knowledge gaps can occur at different levels of aggregation, including the PRI, spin-off, team, individual, incubator, and at different stages of spin-off development. Based on this framework, we synthesize findings from previous studies and papers in the special issue and offer some suggestions for additional research on spin-offs from PRIs.
This paper investigates the development of university spinout companies (USOs). Employing a case-based research method, our study found that there are two important elements in their development. First, USOs go through a number of distinct phases of activity in their development. Each venture must pass through the previous phase in order to progress to the next one but each phase involves an iterative, non-linear process of development in which there may be a need to revisit some of the earlier decisions and activities. Second, at the interstices between the different phases of development we found that ventures face “critical junctures” in terms of the resources and capabilities they need to acquire to progress to the next phase. The different phases are critical as these ventures cannot develop into the next phase without overcoming each of the junctures. We identify four different critical junctures that spinout companies need to overcome if they are to succeed: opportunity recognition, entrepreneurial commitment, credibility and sustainability.
We develop a theoretical model to explain the specific role of Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) in licensing university inventions. Using a framework where firms have incomplete information on the quality of inventions, we develop a reputation argument for the TTO to reduce the asymmetric information problem. Our results indicate that a TTO is often able to benefit from its capacity to pool innovations across research units (and to build a reputation) within universities. We identify when the technology seller will have an incentive to “shelve” some of the projects, thus raising the buyer's beliefs on expected quality; this results in fewer but more valuable innovations being sold at higher prices. We explain the importance of a critical size for the TTO to be successful as well as the stylized fact that TTOs may lead to fewer licensing agreements but higher income from innovation transfers.
We present quantitative and qualitative evidence on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices (TTOs). Our empirical results suggest that TTO activity is characterized by constant returns to scale and that environmental and institutional factors explain some of the variation in performance. Productivity may also depend on organizational practices. Unfortunately, there are no quantitative measures available on such practices, so we rely on inductive, qualitative methods to identify them. Based on 55 interviews of 98 entrepreneurs, scientists, and administrators at five research universities, we conclude that the most critical organizational factors are faculty reward systems, TTO staffing/compensation practices, and cultural barriers between universities and firms.
A new organizational entity has emerged at research universities: the technology transfer office (TTO). TTOs were established to facilitate commercial knowledge transfers from universities to practitioners or university/industry technology transfer (UITT). Despite the potential importance of UITT in fostering technological diffusion and as a source of revenue to the university, there has been little systematic analysis of the role of organizational practices in this process. Thus, we rely on an inductive, qualitative approach to identify the key organizational issues in promoting successful knowledge transfers. Based on 55 structured interviews of 98 UITT stakeholders associated with five US research universities, we conclude that there are numerous impediments to effectiveness in UITT: cultural and informational barriers among the three key stakeholder types (university administrators, academics, and firms/entrepreneurs), TTO staffing and compensation practices, and inadequate rewards for faculty involvement in UITT. Two somewhat surprising results are that many faculty members have decided to circumvent the formal UITT process and that involvement in UITT may actually increase the quantity and quality of basic research.
A set of US-based companies is investigated regarding the effectiveness of intellectual property protection mechanisms (IPPMs) in the formation of research partnerships. Patents are the most frequently used IPPM to protect both background and foreground knowledge in partnerships. Other IPPMs are used to protect know-how, especially in the early, forming stages of a partnership. Existing IP titles are quite useful when negotiating new partnerships. IPR negotiations are reported to be more complex in horizontal partnerships and when universities are involved.
This theory paper examines an ex post rationale for the patenting of scientific discoveries. Scientists do not know which firms can make use of their discoveries, and firms do not know which scientific discoveries might be useful to them. To bridge this gap, either or both sides need to engage in costly search activities. Patents increase (decrease) dissemination when the search intensity of firms is sufficiently inelastic (elastic), relative to that of scientists. Patents also facilitate the delegation of search activities to the universities’ technology transfer offices, which enables efficient specialization. Patenting may be thus become a complement to doing research.
University science parks are alleged to stimulate technological spillovers. However, there is virtually no empirical evidence on the impact of these facilities on research productivity. We begin to fill this gap by examining whether companies located on university science parks in the United Kingdom have higher research productivity than observationally equivalent firms not located on a university science park. The preliminary results appear to be consistent with this hypothesis and are robust to the use of alternative econometric procedures to assess relative productivity.
This paper explores the different incubation strategies for spinning-out companies employed by European Research Institutions. More specifically, we focus on two central questions: (i) What differences or similarities are there in the goals and objectives of the Research Institutions for creating new spinout ventures? (ii) What different incubation strategies are employed to achieve these goals in terms of the resources utilized and activities undertaken? The study uses a two-stage approach. In the first stage, seven spin-out services in five European countries were selected for analysis. At the time of the study, each research institute under analysis had only one unique way to stimulate spin-outs. Therefore, the spin-out service and the particular Research Institution they are associated with are interchangeable as units of analysis. Based upon an in-depth analysis of these seven cases, we identified three distinct incubation models of managing the spin-out process: Low Selective, Supportive, and Incubator. The different incubation models have very different resource implications in managing the process. In particular, we identify resource and competence differences relating to finance, organization, human resources, technology, network, and infrastructure. In the second stage, 43 cases were used to validate these incubation models in terms of resources and activities. This process identified two categories that departed from the normative models, namely, the Resource-Deficient group and the Competence-Deficient group.
The transfer of scientific and technological know-how into valuable economic activity has become a high priority on many policy agendas. Industry Science Links (ISLs) are an important dimension of this policy orientation. Over the last decades, multiple insights have been gained (both theoretical and empirical) as to how “effective” ISLs can be fostered through the design and the development of university-based technology transfer organizations (TTOs). In this paper, we document and analyze the evolution of “effective” university-based technology transfer mechanisms. We describe how decentralized organizational approaches and incentives that stimulate the active involvement of the research groups in the exploitation of their research findings might be combined with specialized central services offering intellectual property management and spin-off support. More particularly, we analyze how the creation of:(1)an appropriate balance between centralization and decentralization within academia;(2)the design of appropriate incentive structures for academic research groups;(3)the implementation of appropriate decision and monitoring processes within the TTOhas brought about critical elements in fostering an “effective” commercialization of the academic science base.
The results of this study provide insight into why some universities generate more new companies to exploit their intellectual property than do others. We compare four different explanations for cross-institutional variation in new firm formation rates from university technology licensing offices (TLOs) over the 1994–1998 period—the availability of venture capital in the university area; the commercial orientation of university research and development; intellectual eminence; and university policies. The results show that intellectual eminence, and the policies of making equity investments in TLO start-ups and maintaining a low inventor’s share of royalties increase new firm formation. The paper discusses the implications of these results for university and public policy.
This paper aims to ascertain the influence of social networks in the university spinout phenomenon. With respect to the instrumental role of social networks, it adopts a content contingency perspective pertaining to the role of closure and structural holes, and examines the interaction between relational and structural embeddedness in the academics' network structure. With respect to spinout outcomes, this paper distinguishes between academic exodus and stasis, and differentiates between types of spinouts based on the degree of involvement of the key academics. It also examines networks at the team level of analysis and submits that team-level structural differences exist between the different spinout structures.
Incl. index, bibliographical references
Sumario: Historical setting -- Du Pont: creating the autonomous divisions -- General Motors: creating the general office -- Standard oil company (New Jersey): ad hoc reorganization -- Sears, Roebuck and company: decentralization, planned and unplanned -- Organizational innovation: a comparative analysis -- The spread of the multidivisional structure -- Conclusion: chapters in the history of the great industrial entreprise.
We review and synthesize the burgeoning literature on institutions and agents engaged in the commercialization of university-based intellectual property. These studies indicate that institutional incentives and organizational practices both play an important role in enhancing the effectiveness of technology transfer. We conclude that university technology transfer should be considered from a strategic perspective. Institutions that choose to stress the entrepreneurial dimension of technology transfer need to address skill deficiencies in technology transfer offices (TTOs), reward systems that are inconsistent with enhanced entrepreneurial activity, and education/training for faculty members, post-docs, and graduate students relating to interactions with entrepreneurs. Business schools at these universities can play a major role in addressing these skill and educational deficiencies, through the delivery of targeted programs to technology licensing officers and members of the campus community wishing to launch startup firms.
We present evidence on the relative efficiency of U.K. university technology transfer offices (TTOs) using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and stochastic frontier estimation (SFE). We find that U.K. TTOs exhibit low levels of absolute efficiency. Universities located in regions with higher levels of R&D and GDP appear to be more efficient in technology transfer, implying that there may be regional spillovers in technology transfer. Our results suggest that TTOs may need to be reconfigured into smaller units, since there may be scope for the development of regionally-based, sector focused TTOs. Consistent with qualitative evidence from U.S. TTOs (e.g., Siegel et al. (2003a, b, c)), we find that there may be a need to enhance the skills and capabilities of U.K. TTO managers and licensing professionals.
Using data for 102 U.S. universities, we show that royalty-sharing arrangements (cash flow rights) vary substantially across universities and that they are largely unrelated to most observed university characteristics including faculty size, quality, research funding, technology mix of the faculty, and size of the technology licensing office. However, higher inventors' royalty shares are associated with higher licensing income at the university, controlling for other factors. The results suggest that monetary incentives from inventions have real effects in the university sector. (JEL: O31, O34, L3, L01) Copyright (c) 2004 The European Economic Association.
In recent years, there has been a rapid rise in commercial knowledge transfers from universities to practitioners or university/industry technology transfer (UITT), via licensing agreements, research joint ventures, and startups. In a previous study in 1999, the authors outlined a production function model to assess the relative efficiency of UITT and conducted field research to identify several organizational factors that could enhance the effectiveness of university management of intellectual property portfolios. This paper extends this framework and evaluates the impact of organizational incentives on the effectiveness of UITT. It is found that universities having more attractive incentive structures for UITT, i.e. those that allocate a higher %age of royalty payments to faculty members, tend to be more efficient in technology transfer activities. University administrators who wish to foster UITT should be mindful of the importance of financial incentives.
In this article we examine the influence of formal technology transfer from a public research organization (PRO) on the amount
of capital a spin-off raises at start-up and the increase in capital post start-up. We examine these relationships using a
unique sample of 135 spin-offs from PROs across five European countries. Our findings suggest that spin-offs with formal technology
transfer start with a larger amount of capital but subsequently do not raise more capital than spin-offs without formal technology
transfer.
The paper offers a new theoretical framework to examine the role of intermediaries between creators and potential users of new inventions. Using a model of university-industry technology transfer, we demonstrate that technology transfer offices can provide an opportunity to economize on a critical component of efficient innovation investments: the expertise to locate new, external inventions and to overcome the problem of sorting ‘profitable’ from ‘unprofitable’ ones. The findings may help explain the surge in university patenting and licensing since the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Furthermore, the study identifies several limitations to the potential efficiency of intermediation in innovation.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - In diesem Papier stellen wir ein neues theoretisches Modell zur Analyse der Rolle von Intermediären zwischen Erfindern und potentiellen Nutzern von Erfindungen vor. Für den Transfer von Erfindungen aus Universitäten in den Industriebereich zeigen wir, daß Technologietransfer-Stellen den Marktteilnehmern die Möglichkeit bieten, sich die Kosten für den Aufbau der Expertise, neue externe Erfindungen zu lokalisieren und evaluieren, zu teilen. Die Ergebnisse unserer Studie können dazu beitragen, die signifikante Zunahme der Universitätspatente und - lizensen seit dem Bayh-Dole-Act von 1980 in den USA zu erklären. Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir Wohlfahrtswirkungen der Aktivität von Innovations-Intermediären.
University technology transfer offices (henceforth, TTOs) play a critical role in the diffusion of innovation and the development of new technology infrastructure. Studies of the relative efficiency of TTOs have been based on licensing output measures and data from a single country. In contrast, we present the first cross-country comparison of the relative performance of TTOs, based on stochastic multiple output distance functions. The additional dimension of output considered is the university's propensity to generate start-up companies, based on technologies developed at these institutions. We find that US universities are more efficient than UK universities and that the production process is characterized by either decreasing or constant returns to scale. Universities with a medical school and an incubator are closer to the frontier.
Using patent data, this work provides an initial empirical investigation into university production of agricultural biotechnology patents. We develop a consistent theoretical methodology for understanding the university patent production process and then estimate count data econometric models of university-owned agricultural biotechnology patents on a series of explanatory variables. The zero inflated negative binomial econometric model used allows inclusion of all major universities, rather than merely those dedicated to agricultural research. The results demonstrate the importance of the US land grant university infrastructure, technology transfer offices, and star scientists. [JEL Codes: L300- Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise: General Q160- Agricultural Technology: Agricultural Extension Services C240- Econometric Methods: Single Equation Models: Truncated and Censored Models] © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
The world wide web (WWW) changes common ideas of database access. Hypertext Markup Language allows the simultaneous presentation of information from different sources such as static pages, results of queries from) databases or dynamically generated pages. 'Therefore, the metaphor of the WWW itself as a database was proposed by Mendelzon and Nlilo in 1998. Against this background the techniques of navigation within WWW-databases and the semantic types of their queries has e been analysed. Forty eight image repositories of different types and content, but all concerning medical essence, have been found by search-engines. Many different techniques are offered to enable navigation ranging from simple HTML-link-lists to complex applets. The applets in particular promise an improvement for navigation. Within the meta-information for querying, only ACR- and UMLS-encoding were found, but not standardized vocabularies like ICD10 or Terminologia Anatomica. UMLS especially shows that a well defined thesaurus can improve navigation. However, of the analysed databases only the UMLS 'metathesaurus' is currently implemented without providing additional navigation support based on the UMLS 'semantic network'. Including the information about relationships between the concepts of the metathesaurus or using the UMLS semantic network could provide a much easier navigation within a network of concepts pointing to multimedia files stored somewhere in the WWW.
Using detailed data on California biotechnology, the authors find that the positive impact of research universities on nearby firms relates to identifiable market exchange between particular university star scientists and firms and not to generalized knowledge spillovers. Poisson and two-stage Beckman regressions indicate the number of star-firm collaborations powerfully predicts success: for an average firm, five articles coauthored by academic stars and the firm's scientists imply about five more products in development, 3.5 more products on the market, and 860 more employees. Stars collaborating with or employed by firms, or who patent, have significantly higher citation rates than pure academic stars. Copyright 1998 by Oxford University Press.
Historically, commercial use of university research has been viewed in terms of spillovers. Recently, there has been a dramatic increase in technology transfer through licensing as universities attempt to appropriate the returns from faculty research. This change has prompted concerns regarding the source of this growth - specifically, whether it suggests a change in the nature of university research. We develop an intermediate input model to examine the extent to which the growth in licensing is due to the productivity observable inputs or driven by a change in the propensity of faculty and administrators to engage in commercializing university research. We model licensing as a three stage process, each involving multiple inputs. Nonparametric programming techniques are applied to survey data from 65 universities to calculate total factor productivity (TFP) growth in each state. To examine the sources of TFP growth, the productivity analysis is augmented by survey evidence from business who license-in university inventions. Results suggest that increased licensing is due primarily to an increased willingness of faculty and administrators to license and increased business reliance on external R&D rather than a shift in faculty research.
We present quantitative and qualitative evidence (field research) on university technology transfer offices (TTOs). These offices negotiate licensing agreements with firms to commercialize university-based technologies. A stochastic frontier production function framework is used to assess the relative productivity of 113 university TTOs. Our field research provided a useful reality check on the specification of the econometric model. The empirical findings imply that licensing activity is characterized by constant returns to scale. Environmental and institutional factors appear to explain some of the variation in TTO efficiency. Relative productivity may also depend on organizational practices in university management of intellectual property, which potentially attenuate palpable differences in the motives, incentives, and organizational cultures of the parties to licensing agreements. Unfortunately, there are no existing data on such practices, so we rely on inductive, qualitative methods to identify them. We present detailed information on our use of these methods. This information may be useful to economists who are contemplating fieldwork. Based on 55 interviews of managers/entrepreneurs and administrators at five research universities, we conclude that the most critical organizational factors are likely to be reward systems for faculty, TTO staffing and compensation practices, and actions taken by administrators to extirpate informational and cultural barriers between universities and firms.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 29-31).
Universities may seek to transfer technology from the public to the private sector, and therefore capture the benefits of commercialization, through a number of different mechanisms. This paper examines the option of using technology-based spin-out companies. Based on a survey of technology transfer/business development officers at 57 U.K. universities, we examine their strategies to promote the creation of spin-out companies and how they then manage the development of these companies. Our analysis focuses on the difference between those universities that have been most active in the area and those that have been least active. The results indicate that the more successful universities have clearer strategies towards the spinning out of companies and the use of surrogate entrepreneurs in this process. In addition, the more successful universities were found to possess a greater expertise and networks that may be important in fostering spin-out companies. However, the role of the academic inventor was not found to differ between the more and less successful universities. Finally, equity ownership was found to be more widely distributed among the members of the spin-out company in the case of the more successful universities. Copyright 2003 by Kluwer Academic Publishers