Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stimulating academic patenting in a university ecosystem: an agent-based simulation approach

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Technology transfer to society is—in addition to research and teaching—widely acknowledged as a third mission of modern universities. Academic entrepreneurship and academic patenting are two closely related means to do so and, more often than not, patenting activity and entrepreneurship are part of a linear sequence in the commercialization process. This paper is mainly concerned with the first step. To further academic patenting, university administrations have installed or expanded existing technology transfer offices (TTOs) as active stakeholders in the university ecosystem. These offices must find the right measures (e.g., monetary or non-monetary incentives or providing information at internal events) and offer them to the right group of scientists (e.g., departments) at the right point in time. This is challenging because scientists’ decision whether to publish or patent depends on several factors, including individual preferences, perceived normative social pressure from peers, level of information received through word-of-mouth communication or informational events, and previous first-hand experience. An agent-based simulation approach may serve as a decision aid for this purpose. Such an approach models stakeholders as ‘agents’ who interact with each other, and through these interactions, the system’s behavior evolves and can be observed. In this paper, we introduce an agent-based simulation for evaluating measures that can be employed by a TTO in order to stimulate academic patenting and, subsequently, the foundation of spin-off companies relying on such patents. The applicability of the approach is illustrated through an example.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An academic entrepreneur typically is a professor, sometimes a Ph.D. student or a post-doc researcher, who sets up a company in order to commercialize the results of her research (Franzoni and Lissoni 2006).

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 382–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. J. (1970). Communication networks in R&D laboratories. R&D Management, 1(1), 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Filippetti, A. (2017). The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127, 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4(3), 291–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University–industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37(10), 1865–1883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., & Acs, Z. (2010). Intellectual property protection and the formation of entrepreneurial growth aspirations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(3), 234–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AUTM. (2017). FY2015: U.S. licensing activity survey. http://www.autm.net/fy2015-survey. Accessed 13 June 2017.

  • Axelrod, R. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2007). What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for the delocalisation of university–industry interaction. Technovation, 27(11), 704–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. (2014). Determinants of national patent ownership by public research organisations and universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(6), 898–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2009). The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public) research output. Journal of Industrial Economics, 62(4), 637–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backs, S. (2012). The role and impact of technology transfer offices on academic patenting: Theory and practice in selected Austrian universities. Working Paper, Chair of Innovation and Technology Management, Bielefeld University. (German).

  • Backs, S., & Stummer, C. (2015). Academic patents and their effects on research, teaching, and administration in universities. Management Review Quarterly, 65(1), 35–68. (German).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33(1), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N. (2010). Do royalties really foster university patenting activity? An answer from Italy. Technovation, 30(2), 109–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 288(5), 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási, A., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311(1), 590–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, E., Rubini, L., Pollio, C., & Micozzi, A. (2018). What are the trade-offs of academic entrepreneurship? An investigation on the Italian case. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(1), 198–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29(2), 142–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, C., Huber, A., & Jarchow, S. (2018). Growth factors of research-based spin-offs and the role of venture capital investing. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(5), 1375–1409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 661–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borshchev, A., & Filippov, A. (2004). From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent based modeling: Reasons, techniques, tools. In 22nd International conference of the system dynamics society. Oxford, UK.

  • Bradler, C., Dur, R., Neckermann, S., & Non, A. (2016). Employee recognition and performance: A field experiment. Management Science, 62(11), 3085–3099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, M. J., & Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttle, F. A. (1998). Word of mouth: Understanding and managing referral marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6(3), 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Provance, M., & Grigoroudis, E. (2016). Entrepreneurship ecosystems: An agent-based simulation approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 631–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N. (2007). Academic incentives, research organization and patenting at a large French university. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 119–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colaianni, C. A., & Cook-Deegan, R. M. (2009). Columbia University’s Axel patents: Technology transfer and implications for the Bayh–Dole act. Milibank Quarterly, 87(3), 683–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A. C., Siegel, D. S., & Katz, J. A. (2014). Academic entrepreneurship: Creating an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Howard House: Emerald.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., & O’Reilly, P. (2018). Macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., & Schneider, C. (2011). Commercializing academic research: The quality of faculty patenting. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5), 1403–1437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., Mahdi, S., Neely, A., & Rentocchini, F. (2012). Inventors and entrepreneurs in academia: What types of skills and experience matter? Technovation, 32(5), 293–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlborg, C., Lewensohn, D., Danell, R., & Sundberg, C. J. (2017). To invent and let others innovate: A framework of academic patent transfer modes. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(3), 538–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Barrio-Castro, T., & García-Quevedo, J. (2009). The determinants of university patenting: Do incentives matter? Working Paper, Barcelona Institute of Economics.

  • Delre, S. A., Jager, W., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Janssen, M. A. (2007). Targeting and timing promotional activities: An agent-based model for the takeoff of new products. Journal of Business Research, 60(8), 826–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delre, S. A., Jager, W., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Janssen, M. A. (2010). Will it spread or not? The effects of social influences and network topology on innovation diffusion. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(2), 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornbusch, F., Schmoch, U., Schulze, N., & Bethke, N. (2013). Identification of university-based patents: A new large-scale approach. Research Evaluation, 22(1), 52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farre-Mensa, J., Hegde, D., & Ljungqvist, A. (2016). Do patents facilitate entrepreneurs’ access to venture capital? Working Paper, Harvard Business School.

  • Filippetti, A., & Savona, M. (2003). University–industry linkages and academic engagements: Individual behaviours and firm’s barriers. Introduction to the special section. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 719–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzoni, C., & Lissoni, F. (2006). Academic entrepreneurship, patents, and spin-offs: Critical issues and lessons for Europe. Working Paper No. 180, CESPRI at Bocconi University.

  • Frey, B., & Neckermann, S. (2008). Academics appreciate awards: A new aspect of incentives in research. CESIfo Working Paper Series No. 2531, CESIfo, Munich.

  • Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1–2), 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, R., & Jager, W. (2011). From the special issue editors: Agent-based modelling of innovation diffusion. Journal of Product Management, 28(2), 148–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geoghegan, W., O’Kane, C., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). Technology transfer offices as a nexus within the triple helix: The progression of the university’s role. International Journal of Technology Management, 68(3–4), 255–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuri, P., Munari, F., & Pasquini, M. (2013). What determines university patent commercialization? Empirical evidence on the role of IPR ownership. Industry and Innovation, 20(5), 488–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, R. K., & Göktepe-Hultén, D. (2018). What drives academic patentees to bypass TTOs? Evidence from a large public research organization. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(1), 240–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göktepe-Hultén, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2010). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money or reputation? Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(4), 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40(1), 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Harhoff, D. (2012). Recent research on the economics of patents. Annual Review of Economics, 4, 541–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. R., Zhiang, L., Carroll, G. R., & Carley, K. M. (2007). Simulation modelling in organizational and management research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1229–1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S., Lubynsky, R., & Maroulis, S. (2017). Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1237–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S., Nelson, A. J., Zayed, S., & O’Connor, A. C. (2018). Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis and extension of the literature. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(4), 1039–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermanowicz, J. (1998). The presentation of occupational self in science. Qualitative Sociology, 21(2), 129–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, T. H., Lim, N., & Camerer, C. F. (2006). How “psychological” should economic and marketing models be? Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 341–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoegl, M., & Proserpio, L. (2004). Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects. Research Policy, 33(8), 1153–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iorio, R., Labory, S., & Rentocchini, F. (2017). The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian academic scientists. Research Policy, 46(2), 497–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M., & Goe, R. W. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33(5), 691–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korff, N., van der Sijde, P., Groenewegen, P., & Davey, T. (2014). Supporting university–industry linkages: A case study of the relationship between the organizational and individual levels. Industry and Higher Education, 28(4), 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38(6), 947–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. Rand Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35(10), 1599–1615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Saihi, M., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2010). Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy, 39(10), 1387–1403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latané, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(8), 795–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33(8), 1201–1215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, A. M., & Kelton, W. D. (1991). Simulation modeling and analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2018). Public cluster policy and performance. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 558–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, Z., Juneja, R., & Wright, B. D. (2009). Patents versus patenting: Implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Nature Biotechnology, 27(1), 36–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R., & Ziedonis, A. (2006). Overoptimism and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Management Science, 52(2), 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüthje, C., & Franke, N. (2003). The ‘making’ of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&D Management, 33(2), 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macy, M. W., & Willer, R. (2002). From factors to actors: Computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 143–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Bass, F. M. (1990). New product diffusion models in marketing: A review and directions for further research. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manna, S., & Sen, P. (2002). Modulated scale-free network in Euclidean space. Physical Review E, 66(6), 066114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005a). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34(7), 1058–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005b). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzoleni, R. (2006). The effects of university patenting and licensing on downstream R&D investment and social welfare. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 431–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (2004). Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 313–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Academic inventiveness and entrepreneurship: On the importance of start-up companies in commercializing academic patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 501–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. J., & Acs, Z. J. (2017). The campus as entrepreneurial ecosystem: The University of Chicago. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 75–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miranda, F. J., Chamorro, A., & Rubio, S. (2018). Re-thinking university spin-off: A critical literature review and a research agenda. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(4), 1007–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munshaw, S., Lee, S.-H., Phan, P. H., & Marr, K. A. (2018). The influence of human capital and perceived university support on patent applications of biomedical investigators. Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9649-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, F. (2006). The OncoMouse that roared: Resistance & accommodation to patenting in academic science. Working Paper, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge.

  • Neck, H. M., Meyer, G. D., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. C. (2004). An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), 190–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (2016). The sciences are different and the differences matter. Research Policy, 45(9), 1692–1701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngwenyama, O., Guergachi, A., & McLaren, T. (2007). Using the learning curve to maximize IT productivity: A decision analysis model for timing software upgrades. International Journal of Production Economics, 105(2), 524–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 617–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niosi, J. (2006). Success factors in Canadian academic spin-offs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 451–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nylund, P. A., & Cohen, B. (2017). Collision density: Driving growth in urban entrepreneurial ecosystems. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(3), 757–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Kane, C., Zhang, J. A., Cunningham, J. A., & O’Reilly, P. (2017). What factors inhibit publicly funded principal investigators’ commercialization activities? Small Enterprise Research, 24(3), 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R. P., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 653–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science research one universities. Research Policy, 32(6), 1081–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialization: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pezzoni, M., Lissoni, F., & Tarasconi, G. (2014). How to kill inventors: Testing the Massacrator algorithm for inventor disambiguation. Scientometrics, 101(1), 477–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polt, W., Gassler, H., & Schibany, A. (2001). Benchmarking industry–science relations: The role of framework conditions. Science and Public Policy, 28(4), 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rand, W., & Rust, R. T. (2011). Agent-based modeling in marketing: Guidelines for rigor. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(3), 181–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influence of university departments on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy, 43(1), 92–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reingen, P. H., & Kernan, J. B. (1986). Analysis of referral networks in marketing: Methods and illustration. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(4), 370–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secundo, G., De Beer, C., Schutte, C. S., & Passiante, G. (2017). Mobilising intellectual capital to improve European universities’ competitiveness: The technology transfer offices’ role. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(3), 607–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2001a). Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management Science, 47(9), 1173–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2001b). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2), 205–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sine, W. D., Shane, S., & Di Gregorio, D. (2003). The halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Management Science, 49(4), 478–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stummer, C., Günther, M., & Backs, S. (2013). A survey on academic patents at Austrian universities: Methodology and initial results. Working Paper, Chair of Innovation and Technology Management, Bielefeld University.

  • Stummer, C., Kiesling, E., Günther, M., & Vetschera, R. (2015). Innovation diffusion of repeat purchase products in a competitive market: An agent-based simulation approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 245(1), 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiriot, S., & Kant, J.-D. (2008). Using associative networks to represent adopters’ beliefs in a multiagent model of innovation diffusion. Advances in Complex Systems, 11(2), 261–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J., Fuller, A. W., & Thursby, M. (2009). US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy, 38(1), 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todorovic, Z. W., McNaughton, R. B., & Guild, P. (2011). ENTRE-U: An entrepreneurial orientation scale for universities. Technovation, 31(2–3), 128–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valdivia, W. D. (2013). University start-ups: Critical for improving technology transfer. Research Paper, Center for Technology Innovation, The Brookings Institution.

  • Verspagen, B. (2006). University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Survey, 20(4), 607–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wadsack-Köchl and Kasparovsky. (2016). Higher education in Austria. Vienna: Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, T., Ihl, C., Mauer, R., & Brettel, M. (2018). Grace, gold, or glory? Exploring incentives for invention disclosure in the university context. Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9303-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. London: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Francesco Lissoni and Michele Pezzoni for applying their name-matching algorithms to our professors’ list as well as Lars Lüpke for retrieving the professors’ names from the websites of (some) Austrian universities.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration and Economics, Bielefeld University, Universitaetsstr. 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany

    Sabrina Backs, Markus Günther & Christian Stummer

Authors
  1. Sabrina Backs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Markus Günther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Stummer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabrina Backs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Backs, S., Günther, M. & Stummer, C. Stimulating academic patenting in a university ecosystem: an agent-based simulation approach. J Technol Transf 44, 434–461 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9697-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9697-x

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation