Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Visual Representation of Technology Transfer Office Intellectual Capital Access

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intellectual Capital Management as a Driver of Sustainability

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to illustrate how intellectual capital (IC) may be visualised and monitored in the university context, using the technology transfer office (TTO) as a unit of observation. The TTO is responsible, in many cases, for supporting academic entrepreneurship. Research has shown that access to IC influences the efficiency of the TTO in performing its functions. Moving from this, the perceived access a TTO has to university IC can be measured across the tripartite classification of IC: human capital (5 indicators), structural capital (13 indicators) and relational capital (6 indicators). These data are then used to create a visual representation of the access that each TTO perceives to have to university IC and to compare it to their overall efficiency. The visual representation allows management at both university and TTO level, to have a clearer understanding of the performance of the TTO and how IC may be leveraged to improve it. These interventions will improve the performance of the TTO and increase success for academic entrepreneurship. This in turn, will aid the university in its pursuit of entrepreneurialism, competitiveness and sustainability.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abernethy, M. A., Horne, M., Lillis, A. M., Malina, M. A., & Selto, F. H. (2005). A multi-method approach to building causal performance maps from expert knowledge. Management Accounting Research, 16(2), 135–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27, 306–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M., Azzone, G., & Carlucci, P. (2009). Developing a performance measurement system for university central administrative services. Higher Education Quarterly, 63(3), 237–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as determinants of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornemann, M., & Wiedenhofer, R. (2014). Intellectual capital in education: A value chain perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(3), 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brescia, F., Colombo, G., & Landoni, P. (2016). Organizational structures of Knowledge transfer offices: An analysis of the world’s top-ranked universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 132–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E., del Giudice, M., & Della Peruta, R. M. (2014). Managing the intellectual capital within government-university-industry R&D partnerships. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(4), 611–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., & Frith, A. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities: A survey and statistical analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 199–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavicchi, C. (2017). Healthcare sustainability and the role of intellectual capital: Evidence from an Italian regional health service. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(3), 544–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of university technology transfer offices in the U.K.: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couper, M. P. (2008). Designing effective web surveys (Vol. 75). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuganesan, S., & Dumay, J. (2009). Reflecting on the production of intellectual capital visualizations. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(8), 1161–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curi, C., Daraio, C., & Llerena, P. (2012). University technology transfer: How (in) efficient are French universities? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 629–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Beer, C., Secundo, G., Passiante, G., & Schutte, C. S. L. (2017). A mechanism for sharing best practices between university technology transfer offices. knowledge Management Research and Practices, 15(4), 523–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2011). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method-2007 Update with new Internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J. (2012). Intellectual capital and strategy as practice: A critical examination. International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science, 4(3), 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Klofsten, M. (2005). The innovating region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R&D Management, 35(3), 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., & Healey, P. (Eds.). (1998). Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of industry and academia. New York: Suny Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, T. W. (1996). Applying ‘options thinking’ to R&D valuation. Research-Technology Management, 39(3), 50–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernstrom, L., Pike, S., & Roos, G. (2004). Understanding the truly value creating resources—The case of a pharmaceutical company. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 81–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habersam, M., & Piber, M. (2003). Exploring intellectual capital in hospitals: Two qualitative case studies in Italy and Austria. European Accounting Review, 12(4), 753–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulsbeck, M., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Wright, M., & Piva, E. (2014). Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: The case of a hybrid model. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, 36, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Anderson, T., & Daim, T. (2008). Assessing university technology transfer: A measure of efficiency patterns. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 5(4), 495–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2–3), 252–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libecap, G. (2005). University entrepreneurship and technology transfer: Process, design, and intellectual property. Arizona: Elsevier.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • lozano, R. (2011). The state of sustainability reporting in universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marr, B., & Chatzkel, J. (2004). Intellectual capital at the crossroads. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 224–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matos, F., & Vairinhos, V. M. (2017). Intellectual capital management as a driver of competitiveness and sustainability. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(3), 466–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K., McAdam, R., & McAdam, M. (2016). A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: Toward a research agenda. R&D Management, 48(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. R., & Saal, F. E. (1990). What should we expect from scientist–practitioners? In K. R. Murphy & F. E. Saal (Eds.), Psychology in organizations: integrating science and practice (pp. 49–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osinski, M., Selig, P. M., Matos, F., & Roman, D. J. (2017). Methods of evaluation of intangible assets and intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(3), 470–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. B. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryke, A., Mostaghim, S., & Nazemi, A. (2007). Heatmap visualization of population based multi objective algorithms. In Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (pp. 361–375). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Redford, D. T., & Fayolle, A. (2014). Stakeholder management and the entrepreneurial university. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Resende, D. N., Gibson, D., & Jarrett, J. (2013). BTP—Best transfer practices. A tool for qualitative analysis of tech-transfer offices: A cross cultural analysis. Technovation, 33(1), 2–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoen, A., de la Potterie, B. V. P., & Henkel, J. (2014). Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 435–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secundo, G., de Beer, C., & Passiante, G. (2016). Measuring university technology transfer efficiency: A maturity level approach. Measuring Business Excellence, 20(3), 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secundo, G., de Beer, C., Schutte, C. S. L., & Passiante, G. (2017). Mobilising intellectual capital to improve European universities’ competitiveness: The technology transfer offices’ role. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(3), 618–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secundo, G., Elena-Perez, S., Martinaitis, Z., & Leitner, K. H. (2015). An intellectual capital maturity model (ICMM) to improve strategic management in European universities: A dynamic approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 419–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secundo, G., Passiante, G., Matos, F., & Cabrita, M. R. (2015). Intellectual capital in academic entrepreneurship: Moving beyond measurement. In European Conference on Knowledge Management (p. 684). Academic Conferences International Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Phan, P. H. (2004). Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education (No. 0426). Troy: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1–2), 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. London: Doubleday-Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (1998). University technology transfer: A DEA analysis. In D. kantarelis (Ed.), Business and economics for the 21st century (Vol. 2, pp. 303–311). Worcester, MA: Business and Economics Society International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). University licensing and the Bayh–Dole act. Science, 301(5636), 1052–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Are faculty critical? Their role in university–industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 162–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinig, T., & Lips, D. (2015). Measuring the performance of university technology transfer using meta data approach: The case of Dutch universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 1034–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Innovation Engineering, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy

    Giustina Secundo & Giuseppina Passiante

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

    Christle de Beer & Cornelius S. L. Schutte

Authors
  1. Giustina Secundo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christle de Beer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giuseppina Passiante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cornelius S. L. Schutte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giustina Secundo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ICAA – Intellectual Capital Association, Santarém, Portugal

    Florinda Matos  & Valter Vairinhos  & 

  2. DINÂMIA’CET – IUL, Centre for Socioeconomic and Territorial Studies, Lisboa, Portugal

    Florinda Matos

  3. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Santa Catarina, Brazil

    Paulo Maurício Selig

  4. The New Club of Paris e.V., Lund University, Vienna, Austria

    Leif Edvinsson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Secundo, G., de Beer, C., Passiante, G., Schutte, C.S.L. (2019). A Visual Representation of Technology Transfer Office Intellectual Capital Access. In: Matos, F., Vairinhos, V., Selig, P.M., Edvinsson, L. (eds) Intellectual Capital Management as a Driver of Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-79051-0_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation