Advertisement

The Cooperative Strategy of Technology Transfer Offices: A Longitudinal Study

  • Mireille Matt
  • Véronique Schaeffer
Chapter
Part of the International Studies in Entrepreneurship book series (ISEN, volume 28)

Abstract

The literature on technology transfer offices (TTOs) focuses on the main variables explaining the performance of these organizations. The implicit strategic model considered by the literature is that the TTOs have to control all the activities, resources, competences of the value chain of the technology transfer process. The aim of the TTO is to maximize the revenues of the commercialization of academic results and its role is to manage a linear and unidirectional process. However, this model is not applicable for every university. In France, TTOs developed cooperative strategies with other local TTOs on the one hand, to pool resources and share costs and on the other hand, to structure the regional innovation system. TTOs do not anymore control internally all the activities and accept to share some of them with partners. Instead of having as unique objective to maximize the gains of technology transfer activities, TTOs set up alliances with the aim to diffuse more largely and at a higher speed the research results. The technology transfer process is considered as interactive and multidirectional. This alternative model is illustrated by a longitudinal study of a French University active since a long time in technology transfer activities.

Keywords

Intellectual Property Technology Transfer Cooperative Strategy Knowledge Factory Technology Transfer Office 
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.

References

  1. Acworth EB (2008) University–industry engagement: the formation of the knowledge integration community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Res Policy 37(8):1241–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bercovitz J, Feldman M, Feller I, Burton R (2001) Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: an exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. J Technol Trans 26:21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapple W, Lockett A, Siegel D, Wright M (2005) Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence. Res Policy 34:369–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colyvas J, Crow M, Gelijns A, Mazzoleni R, Nelson RR, Rosenberg N, Sampat B (2002) How do university inventions get into practice? Manage Sci 48(1):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Bondt R (1997) Spillovers and innovative activities. Int J Ind Organ 15(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Debackere K, Veugelers R (2005) The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Res Policy 34:321–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Di Gregorio D, Shane B (2003) Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Res Policy 32:209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franklin S, Wright M, Lockett A (2001) Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. J Technol Trans 26(1–2):127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. George G (2005) Learning to be capable: patenting and licensing at the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation 1925–2002. Ind Corp Change 14(1):119–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geuna A, Muscio A (2009) The governance of university knowledge transfer: a critical review of the literature. Minerva 47:93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackson S, Audretsch DB (2004) The Indiana university advanced research and technology institute: a case study. J Technol Trans 29:119–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jain S, George G (2007) Technology transfer offices as institutional entrepreneurs: the case of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and human embryonic stem cells. Ind Corp Change 16(4):535–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jensen R, Thursby MC (2001) Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. Am Econ Rev 91(1):240–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jensen R, Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2003) The disclosure and licensing of university inventions: the best we can do with the s**t we get to work with. Int J Ind Organ 21:1271–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katz MJ, Ordover JA (1990) R&D cooperation and competition. Brookings papers on economic activity: microeconomics, pp 137–203 vol 1Google Scholar
  16. Lach S, Schankerman M (2004) Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. J Eur Econ Assoc 2(2–3):252–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Link AN, Scott JT (2005) Opening the Ivory’s Tower Door: An Analysis of the Determinants of the Formation of US University Spin-off Companies. Res Policy 34:1106–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Link AN, Siegel DS (2005) Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. Eur J Finance 11(3):169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Link AN, Siegel DS, Bozeman B (2007) An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Ind Corp Change 16:641–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Litan RE, Mitchell L, Reedy EJ (2007) Commercializing university innovations: alternative approaches. NBER working paperGoogle Scholar
  21. Lockett A, Wright M (2005) Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Res Policy 34:1043–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Markman GD, Phan PH, Balkin DB, Gianiodis PT (2005a) Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. J Bus Venturing 20(2):241–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan HP, Balkin DB (2005b) Innovation speed: transferring ­university technology to market. Res Policy 34:1058–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Markman GD, Siegel DS, Wright M (2008a) Research technology commercialization. J Manage Stud 45(8):1401–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH (2008b) Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 55:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH (2009) Supply-side innovation and technology commercialization. J Manage Stud 46(4):625–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muscio A (2010) What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. J Technol Trans 35:181–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Shea RP, Allen TJ, Chevalier A, Roche F (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Res Policy 34:994–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Shea RP, Allen TJ, Morse KP, O’Gorman C, Roche F (2007) Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institutes of Technology experience. R&D Manage 37:1–16Google Scholar
  30. Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2003) The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Res Policy 32(9):1695–1711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Phan PH, Siegel DS (2006) The effectiveness of university technology transfer: lessons learned, managerial and policy implications, and the road forward. Found Trends Entrepreneurship 2(2):77–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Polt W (2001) Benchmarking Industry-science relations: the role of framework conditions. Final report prepared for EC, DG enterpriseGoogle Scholar
  33. Powers JB, McDougall P (2005) University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. J Bus Venturing 20(3):291–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rothaermel FT, Agung SD, Jiang L (2007) University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Ind Corp Change 16(4):691–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salant SW, Schaffer G (1998) Optimal asymmetric strategies in research joint venture. Int J Ind Organ 16:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shane S (2002) Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Manage Sci 48(1):122–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siegel DS, Waldman DA, Atwater L, Link AN (2003a) Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. J High Technol Manage Res 14:111–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siegel DS, Waldman D, Atwater L, Link A (2003b) Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Res policy 32:27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Siegel DS, Waldman D, Link A (2004) Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. J Eng Technol Manage 21:115–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Siegel DS, Veugelers R, Wright M (2007) Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 23(4):640–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Siegel DS, Wright M, Chapple W, Lockett A (2008) Assessing the relative performance of university technology transfer in the US and UK: a stochastic distance function approach. Econ Innov New Technol 17(7):719–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thursby JG, Kemp S (2002) Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Res Policy 31:109–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2002) Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Manage Sci 48(1):90–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2007) Chapter 6 Knowledge Creation and Diffusion of Public Science with Intellectual Property Rights, in Keith E. Maskus (ed.) Intellectual Property, Growth and Trade (Frontiers of Economics and Globalization, Volume 2), Emerald Group Publishing Limited pp.199–232Google Scholar
  45. Thursby JG, Jensen R, Thursby MC (2001) Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities. J Technol Trans 26:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wright M, Lockett A, Clarysse B, Binks M (2006) University spin-out companies and venture capital. Res Policy 35:481–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Youtie J, Shapira P (2008) Building an innovation hub: a case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Res Policy 37(8):1188–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL), INRAUniversité Pierre Mendès FranceGrenoble Cedex 09France
  2. 2.Bureau d‘Economie Théorique et Appliquée, (BETA)Université de StrasbourgStrasbourg CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations