Commercialization of University Research for Technology-Based Economic Development

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-172
Author(s):  
W. Ker Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Economic Impact ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
University Research ◽  
Technology Transfer Office ◽  
Federally Funded ◽  
Practice Model ◽  
Technology Transfer Offices ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Commercialization Of University Research

This empirical study investigates the hypothesized relationship between US federally funded university research and development (R&D) and its resulting economic impact, as measured by the level of licensing revenue generated by US universities. The author also examines the key operating statistics of the top-ten licensing income-producing technology transfer offices in the USA to determine what may differentiate them from their counterparts in other institutions and whether there are identifiable traits within the data that could be incorporated into a best practice model for the rest of the industry. It is found that there is a small but statistically significant correlation between R&D spending and economic impact. However, university licence income is found to be more a function of the system-wide volume of R&D funding than individual technology transfer office behaviour.

Information-based imitation of university commercialization strategies: The role of technology transfer office autonomy, age, and membership into an association

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Pitsakis ◽  
Claudio Giachetti
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
University Technology Transfer ◽  
Internal Source ◽  
Technology Transfer Office ◽  
Technology Transfer Offices ◽  
University Technology ◽  
Source Of Information ◽  
Successful Technology

We investigate whether university technology transfer offices, that is, divisions responsible for the commercialization of academic research, imitate their industry peers when designing their commercialization strategy. We borrow from information-based theories of imitation and the literature on academic entrepreneurship to argue that given a technology transfer office’s autonomy to strategize independently from its parent university, information from within and outside the technology transfer office affects its propensity to imitate the commercialization strategy of the “most successful peers,” that is, those with the largest live spinoff portfolio and greatest revenues from spinoffs in the industry. We contend that a technology transfer office’s experience, that is, a function of its age, represents a key internal source of information for the technology transfer office when deciding whether to imitate or not; we also consider the technology transfer office’s embeddedness in a network where the most successful peer is also a member as a key external source of information. From data on 86 British university technology transfer offices and their commercialization strategies between 1993 and 2007 that were drawn from both secondary sources and in-depth interviews with technology transfer office managers, we find that there is a negative relationship between technology transfer offices’ autonomy and their level of imitation of the most successful technology transfer office’s strategy, and that this relationship is moderated by the technology transfer offices’ age and by their membership into an association where the most successful technology transfer office is also a member.

Licensing, Partnering, Strategic Alliances and University Relationships

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wesley Daniel Blakeslee
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Strategic Alliances ◽  
Biotechnology Industry ◽  
University Research ◽  
University Technology Transfer ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Technology Transfer Offices ◽  
The University ◽  
University Industry

Abstract The biopharmaceutical industry has been undergoing change for a number of years and that change is accelerating.  Larger pharmaceutical companies are acquiring smaller ones, companies are merging, laboratories are being closed, and the number of scientists performing research in the pharmaceutical industry is declining.  Overall, commercial industry, including the biotechnology industry, is becoming more interested in the benefits of collaboration with research institutions.Universities are also changing their view of relationships with industry.  Shrinking federal budgets are causing universities to look at other sources of revenue, including collaborations with industry.  Federal and state governments are also looking closely at the benefits of sponsoring university research, and in particular are seeking to accelerate commercialization of university discoveries not only to obtain the benefit of invested research dollars, but also for economic development and job growth.  Universities, and in particular university technology transfer offices, must understand these changes and adapt to them. This paper discusses the university/industry relationships, and the particular issues important to universities which shape that interface. 

Public Relations and Technology Transfer Offices

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 227-234
Author(s):  
James M. Haney ◽  
Andrew Cohn
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Business Partnerships ◽  
Electronic Survey ◽  
Government Relations ◽  
Effective Evaluation ◽  
Technology Transfer Offices ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Sound Media ◽  
Communication Operations

This article discusses the importance for technology transfer offices of sound media and government relations strategies. It reports the results of a nationwide electronic survey in the USA and interviews with technology transfer managers on how they handle public relations issues in their offices. Strengths and weaknesses of their communication operations are highlighted, and perceived training needs are identified. Based on their research, the authors recommend: (a) more proactive public relations activities for technology transfer offices, (b) increased promotion of business partnerships, (c) effective evaluation of current activities, (d) possible best practices, (e) specific training initiatives and (f) ways to improve responses to attacks on the Bayh–Dole Act.

The Economic Impact of University Technologies

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred R. Berkeley
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Stock Market ◽  
Economic Impact ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Vice Chairman ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Technology Managers

This article is an edited version of a speech given by Alfred R. Berkeley, former President and Vice-Chairman of the NASDAQ Stock Market Inc, as part of the 30th anniversary celebrations of the US Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) during the 2004 AUTM Annual MeetingSM. The article stresses the increasingly important role of technology transfer in the economic and social futures of the USA and points up lessons for technology transfer professionals from the key changes and policy decisions that have driven the development of America's capital markets over the past few decades.

University knowledge, open innovation and technological capital in Spanish science parks

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Villasalero
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
University Research ◽  
Firm Innovation ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Technology Transfer Offices ◽  
Spanish Universities ◽  
Administrator Perspective ◽  
Technological Capital ◽  
The University

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the connection between university research and technological capital developed by science park (SCP) firms in order to elucidate whether the causal linkage is owing to non-pecuniary research spillovers or pecuniary technology transfer activities. Design/methodology/approach – Two publicly available surveys, one dealing with the research and transfer activities of 45 Spanish universities and another with the patenting activities of 44 Spanish SCPs, are matched in such a way that hypotheses can be tested using regression analysis. Findings – The patenting performance of SCP firms is positively related to the competitive R&D projects undertaken by the universities to which they are affiliated and negatively related to the technology transfer activities carried out by those universities. These findings suggest that the scientific knowledge produced by universities principally contributes to private technology-based firms’ technological capital through non-pecuniary research spillovers, whereas the pecuniary technology transfer agreements remain uncertain or may even prove to be detrimental. Practical implications – Firms that are considering locating or remaining in a university-affiliated SCP should be aware that the university's pecuniary orientation when managing its intellectual capital may become a barrier as regards the firm filling its technological capital shortages. From a university administrator perspective, the complementary or substitute role of technology transfer offices vis-à-vis SCPs should be considered in the light of the selling or revealing approach adopted by the university in order to commercialize and diffuse potential inventions. Originality/value – This study contributes to existing literature by shedding light on the causal linkage between university research and firm innovation, obtaining evidence in favor of an upstream, non-pecuniary and revealing role of universities in support of the accumulation of technological capital amongst SCPs tenant firms.

The Bayh–Dole Act, Technology Transfer and the Public Interest

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason F. Perkins ◽  
William G. Tierney
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Research Universities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Technology Transfer Offices ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The University

Passed to stimulate innovation and economic growth in 1980, the Bayh–Dole Act caused research universities in the USA to increase their focus on patenting and licensing activities. While Bayh–Dole appears to have led to an escalation in licensing and patenting applications through technology transfer offices, some question the Act's utility and influence with regard to the traditional mission of the university. This paper describes the Act's operation and influence, and analyses its consequences for academia, industry and the mission of research universities.

Technology Innovation and Development

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 416-422
Author(s):  
Pamela Passman ◽  
Betsy Brady ◽  
Bill Guidera
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Technology Innovation ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Federally Funded ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Transfer Of Technology ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Potential Benefits

The Bayh–Dole Act has been remarkably successful in promoting the transfer of technology in the USA from federally funded research labs to the private sector. Although other governments are now looking to Bayh–Dole as a model, most of this interest has been limited to developed countries. This article examines the potential benefits of the Bayh–Dole framework for developing countries – both for local industries and to generate revenue for local non-profit research labs. It also proposes initiatives that the USA should undertake to help developing countries to establish the rules and institutional mechanisms necessary to promote technology transfer in their own countries.

scholarly journals Accelerating a Technology Commercialization; with a Discussion on the Relation between Technology Transfer Efficiency and Open Innovation

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wahyudi Sutopo ◽  
Rina Wiji Astuti ◽  
Retno Tanding Suryandari
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Production Function ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Technology Commercialization ◽  
Data Envelopment ◽  
Technology Transfer Office ◽  
Technology Transfer Offices ◽  
Dea Efficiency ◽  
The University ◽  
Decision Making Units

Commercialization strategy is an all-encompassing plan that organizes technology transfer office goals to commercialize a university’s technologies. Measurement strategy requires feasible variables that make up those goals. This strategy also ensures that all variables that are important in measuring contribute to the larger goals. A useful way to assess and explain the effectiveness of the technology transfer office (TTO) of universities is to model this within a production function/frontier framework. Such a production function is typically estimated econometrically. This study presents evidence on the relative efficiency of research commercialization in the university through the data envelopment analysis (DEA) model. The implication of the DEA efficiency result is to derive the efficiency level of the TTO’s strategy from the observed performance. It also helps in identifying the benchmarking of other TTOs, which would be valuable information for improving their new technology commercialization strategy. In detail, a benchmark is provided to improve the weakness of strategy and resource allocation of a poorly performing TTO. The proposed matrix of indicators is an exploit of how performance could be measured within the decision-making units that have been chosen. By introducing the measure to commercialization strategy framework the development of technology transfer offices policies are considered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document