Case Study: United States of America

  • Waqas NawazEmail author
  • Muammer Koç
Part of the Management and Industrial Engineering book series (MINEN)


United States of America is of a special interest in academic studies due to its size, population, resources, and the development quotient. The country has organically advanced in the paradigm of research and innovation through advanced, diverse and strong IUGPs, which resulted in the creation of knowledge-intensive business opportunities and jobs. This chapter provides a comprehensive account on the development of IUGPs in the US. First, we explore the history of the IUGPs in the US—how it evolved and who supported it? Second, we discuss the legislation around the IUGPs, such as the Bayh-Dole Act which is one of the widely credited acts for improving university-industry collaboration and technology transfer in the US national innovation system. Third, we take account of the intermediary structures in the US which support the translation of research results into commercialized products/services, such as the Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRCs), Engineering Research Centers (ERC), research parks, and industrial innovation centers. Finally, we review the national policies that encourage the collaboration between universities, industries, and government, such as the public procurement of integrated circuit chips, research and experimentation tax credit program, and small business innovation research program.


  1. Aernoudt, R. (2004). Incubators: Tool for entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 23, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akabas, S. & Collins, B. (2014). What is the research and experimentation tax credit? Accessed on May 20, 2017.
  3. AURP. (2010). The Power of Place 2.0-The Power of Innovation: 10 Steps for Creating Jobs, Improving Technology Commercialization, and Building Communities of Innovation. Available at
  4. AUTM. (2015). The AUTM Briefing Book: 2015. Available online in Accessed on June 4, 2017.
  5. Badir Program for Technology Incubators. (2012). Business Accelerators and Business Incubators.Google Scholar
  6. Batterson, J. G. (2002). Extending outreach success for the national nanoscale science and engineering centers—A handbook for universities. Available online on
  7. Ben-David, J. (1968). Fundamental research and the universities. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blackwell, H. (2012). Emerging energy and intellectual property—The often unappreciated risks and hurdles of government regulations and standard setting organizations. The National Law Review, May 22, 2012.Google Scholar
  9. Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Proof of concept centers in the United States: An exploratory look. Department of economics working paper series, The University of North Carolina Greensboro, May 2013.Google Scholar
  10. Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities—A survey and statistical analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1–2), 199–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carvalho, L. (2015). Handbook of research on entrepreneurial success and its impact on regional development. IGI Global.Google Scholar
  12. Chai, S., & Shih, W. (2016). Bridging science and technology through academic–industry partnerships. Research Policy, 45, 148–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chubin, D. E., Derrick, E., Feller, I., & Phartiyal, P. (2010). AAAS review of the NSF science and technology centers integrative partnerships (STC) program, 2000–2009. Washington, DC: Final Report, AAAS.Google Scholar
  14. Cluster mapping. (2017). Accessed on May 18, 2017.
  15. Cornell University, INSEAD, WIPO. (2017). The global innovation index 2017—innovation feeding the world. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, and Geneva.Google Scholar
  16. EDA. (2017). Accessed on May 18, 2017.
  17. EDA The i6 Challenge. (2012). The i6 challenge: proof of concept centers (fact sheet) 2012. Available online in
  18. Eurostat. (2017). R&D expenditure—Statistics explained. Available online
  19. Felsenstein, D. (1994). University-related science parks—‘Seedbeds’ or ‘Enclaves’ of innovation? Technovation, 14, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fleischut, P. M., & Haas, S. (2005). University technology transfer offices: A status report. Biotechnology Healthcare, 2(2), 48–53.Google Scholar
  21. Goldfarb, B., Henrekson, M., & Rosenberg, N. (2001). Demand versus supply driven innovations: US and Swedish experiences in academic entrepreneurship. SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 00–35, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  22. GUV. (2014). GUV TTO and combined world rankings 2014. Available online in Accessed on June 3 2017.
  23. Hoffman, D. L., & Radojevich-Kelly, N. (2012). Analysis of accelerator companies: An exploratory case study of their programs, processes, and early results. Small Business Institute Journal, 8(2), 54–70.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, K. M. (2012). Build a competitive, low-carbon economy to secure America’s energy future. In C. W. Wessner, Rapporteur (Eds.), Clustering for 21st century prosperity: Summary of a symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Larson, E. V., & Brahmakulam, I. T. (2002). Building a New Foundation for innovation: Results of a workshop for the national science foundation. RAND, Arlington, VA: Science and Technology Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  26. Lewis, C. S. (2010). Engineering research centers (innovations): ERC-generated commercialized products, processes, and startups. SciTech Communications LLC.Google Scholar
  27. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). The growth of research triangle park. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manufacturing USA. (2017). Accessed on June 13 2017.
  29. Martin-Vega, L., Seiford, L. M., & Senich, D. (2002). GOALI: A national science foundation university-industry liaison program. Interfaces, 32(2), 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mathematica Policy Research. (2015). Evaluation of the jobs and innovation accelerator challenge grants: Interim findings on multiagency collaboration and cluster progress (Interim Report). Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.Google Scholar
  31. Michigan Economic Development Corporation. (2009). Technology collaboration tax credit. Accessed on May 21 2017.
  32. Mitra, S. (2013). The problems with incubators and how to solve them. Harvard Business Review, 26 August 2013.Google Scholar
  33. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model forother OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 115–127.Google Scholar
  34. NASEM. (2016). STTR: An assessment of the small business technology transfer program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  35. NCSU. (2017). Accessed on May 13, 2017.
  36. NEC, CEA, OSTP. (2011). A strategy for american innovation: Securing our economic growth and prosperity. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  37. New York Department of Taxation and Finance. (2017). Accessed on May 21, 2017.
  38. NIST. (2005). Evaluation best practices and results: The advanced technology program. Available online in
  39. NIST NRI. (2012). NRI to lead new five-year effort to develop post-CMOS electronics. Posted on 16 October 2012.Google Scholar
  40. NIST TIP. (2017). Accessed on May 21, 2017.
  41. NNMI. (2016). National network for manufacturing innovation program annual report. Available online on
  42. NNN. (2017). Accessed on June 11, 2017.
  43. NSF NSEC. (2004). Nanoscale science and engineering (Program Solicitation). Posted online on 12 August 2004.Google Scholar
  44. NSF GOALI. (2012). Accessed on May 13, 2017.
  45. NSF STC. (2014). Science and technology centers: Integrative partnerships (Program solicitation). Posted online on 13 August 2014.Google Scholar
  46. NSF ERC. (2015). Gen-3. Engineering research centers (ERC) partnerships in transformational research, education, and technology (Program solicitation). Posted on 24 July 2015.Google Scholar
  47. NSF MRSEC. (2016). Materials research science and engineering centers: Program solicitation. Posted online on February 26, 2016.Google Scholar
  48. NSF ERC. (2017). Accessed on July 12, 2017.
  49. NSF IUCRC. (2017). Accessed on May 13, 2017.
  50. NSF MRSEC. (2017). Accessed on June 10 2017.
  51. NSF PFI. (2017). Accessed on May 13, 2017.
  52. NSF STC. (2017). Accessed on June 8, 2017.
  53. Optimal. (2012). The evaluation of the U.S. small business administration’s regional cluster initiative (year one report). MD: Optimal Solutions Group, LLC.Google Scholar
  54. Rogers, J. D., Youtie, J., Porter, A., Shapira, P. (2011). Assessment of fifteen nanotechnology science and engineering centers’ (NSECs) outcomes and impacts: Their contribution to NNI objectives and goals. NSF Award 0955089 Final Report, May 2011.Google Scholar
  55. RTP. (2017). Accessed on May 21, 2017.
  56. Saxenian, A. (1996). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in silicon valley and route 128. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. SBA. (2014b). Small business technology transfer (STTR) program: Policy directive. Available online in
  58. SBA. (2017a). Accessed on May 18, 2017.
  59. SBA. (2017b). Accessed on May 18, 2017.
  60. Schacht, W. H. (2011). The TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION Program. CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  61. Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2010). The innovation system and innovation policy in the United States. Available in Accessed on May 15, 2017.
  62. Shreffler, E. (2010). Michigan investments in batteries and electric vehicles. National Academies Symposium on Building the U.S. Battery Industry for Electric Drive Vehicles, Livonia, Michigan, 26 July, 2010.Google Scholar
  63. SIA. (2010). Focus center research program: Government-industry co-sponsorship of university research. Available online on
  64. SIA. (2012). Nanoelectronics research initiative: Government-industry partnership on university research. Available online on
  65. Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. SRC FCRP. (2017). Accessed on June 12, 2017.
  67. SRI International. (2014). The EDA i6 Challenge Program: Assessment & Metrics. Final Report, 30 October 2014.Google Scholar
  68. Stanford Research Park. (2017). Accessed on May 9, 2017.
  69. TARDEC. (2010). Advanced vehicle and power initiative. Transportation Energy Security Team, TARDEC-National Automotive Center.Google Scholar
  70. The World Bank. (2017). Accessed on December 17, 2017.
  71. US Census Bureau. (2017). Accessed on December 17, 2017.
  72. Us, N. R. C. (1987). Science and technology centers: Principles and guidelines. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  73. US NRC. (2001). The advanced technology program: Assessing outcomes. In C. Wessner (ed.), Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  74. US NRC. (2003). Securing the future: Regional and national programs to support the semiconductor industry. In C. Wessner (ed.), Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  75. Us, N. R. C. (2005). The national science foundation’s materials research science and engineering centers program: Looking back, moving forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  76. Us, N. R. C. (2008). An assessment of the SBIR program. In C. Wessner (Ed.), Washington. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  77. US DOE. (2010). Fiscal year 2010 energy efficient building systems regional innovation cluster initiative. Funding Opportunity Announcement.Google Scholar
  78. US DA. (2011). USDA, Agricultural Research Service (ARS): Technology transfer program and formal links to economic development through its Agricultural Technology Innovation Partnership Program (ATIP). USDA Technology Transfer by ARS.Google Scholar
  79. Us, N. R. C. (2011b). Growing innovation clusters for american prosperity: Summary of a symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  80. Us, M. O. E. (2012b). Integrating industry-driven competencies in education and training through employer engagement. Washington, DC: Office of Vocational and Adult Education.Google Scholar
  81. US NRC. (2012). Rising to the challenge: US Innovation Policy for the Global Economy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press,Google Scholar
  82. US NRC. (2013). Best practices in state and regional innovation initiatives. In C.W. Wessner (ed.), Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  83. US ED, OII. (2017). Accessed on May 7, 2017.
  84. Wallsten, S. (2001). The role of government in regional technology development: The effects of public venture capital and science parks. Stanford University: SIEPR Working Paper.Google Scholar
  85. Wiggins, J., & Gibson, D. V. (2003). Overview of US incubators and the case of the Austin Technology Incubator. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3(1/2), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zhou, M., & Xu, H. (2012). A review of entrepreneurship education for college students in China. Administrative Sciences, 2, 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sustainable Development DivisionHamad Bin Khalifa UniversityDohaQatar
  2. 2.Sustainable Development DivisionHamad Bin Khalifa UniversityDohaQatar

Personalised recommendations