Evaluating University Technology Transfer Offices

  • Kirsten Sachwitz Apple
Part of the International Studies in Entrepreneurship book series (ISEN, volume 17)


Programs to transfer technology from universities and government agencies to the private sector are a cornerstone of economic development in the US economy. Most US universities today have a centralized technology transfer office which handles all of their intellectual property; however, the question remains “is this the most effective means of technology transfer?” The evidence is mixed or minimal for all other measurements including licensing and spin-offs, but suggests a bottleneck remains in the commercialization of new technologies. The author posits a new operational model and strategic principles university technology transfer offices should employ.


Technology Transfer Office Venture Capital Financing Firm Formation Entrepreneurial Economy Federal Research Funding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

6.9 References

  1. (2002). “Innovation's Golden Goose.” The Economist-US.Google Scholar
  2. (2006). Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Acs, Z. J. a. D. A. (2005). Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technological Change. Hanover, MA, now Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D. B. A., Taylor; Oettl, Alexander (2006). The Knowledge Filter and Economic Growth: The Role of Scientist Entrepreneurship. Kansas City, MO, Kauffman Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B. A. R. T. (2001). What's new about the new Economy? Sources of Growth in the Managed and Entrepreneurial Economies. Bloomington, Institute for Development Strategies: 39.Google Scholar
  6. Bartlett, C. A. a. S. G. (1993). “Beyond the M-Form: Towards a Managerial Theory of the Firm.” Strategic Management Journal 14: 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blakely, E. a. T. B. (2002). Planning Local Economic Development: Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Cappelli, P. (2000). “Managing Without Commitment.” Organizational Dynamics 28(4): 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, W. M. a. R. C. L. (1987). “Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Reexamination.” Journal of Industrial Economics 35: 543–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Groot, W. a. M. V. (1997). “Aging, Job Mobility and Compensation.” Oxford Economic Papers 49(3): 380–403.Google Scholar
  11. Jackson, M. S. a. A., D.B. (2004). “The Indiana University Advanced Research and Technology Institute: a Case study.” Journal of Technology Transfer 29: 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Links, A. N. a. J. R. (1990). “Firm size, university based research and the returns to R&D.” Small Business Economics 2(1): 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mowery, D. C. (2004). The Bayh-Dole Act and High-Technology Entrepreneurship in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s. Kansas City, Kauffman Foundation: 41.Google Scholar
  14. Schramm, C. (2006). The Entrepreneurial Imperative: How America's Economic Miracle Will Reshape the World (and Change Your Life), Collins.Google Scholar
  15. Shane, S. A. (2003). A General Theory Of Entrepreneurship: The Individual opportunity Nexus. Northampton, Massachusetts, Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Tansey, B. (2005). “The building of biotech 25 years later, 1980 Bayh-Dole act honored as foundation of an industry.” San Francisco chronicle.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsten Sachwitz Apple
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public PolicyThe George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations