Skip to main content
Top

2016 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

12. Decision-Making Tools: University Technology Transfer Effectiveness

Author : Thien Anh Tran

Published in: Hierarchical Decision Modeling

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Academic knowledge and technology transfer has been growing in importance both in academic research and practice. A critical question in managing this activity is how to evaluate its effectiveness. The literature shows an increasing number of studies done to address this question; however, it also reveals important gaps that need more research. One novel approach is to evaluate the effectiveness of this activity from an organizational point of view, which is to measure how much knowledge and technology transfer from a university fulfills the mission of the institution. This research develops a hierarchical decision model to measure the contribution values of various knowledge and technology transfer mechanisms to the achievement of the mission. The performance values obtained from the university under investigation are applied to the model to develop a Knowledge and Technology Transfer Effectiveness Index for that university. The Index helps an academic institution assess the current performance of its knowledge and technology transfer with respect to its mission. This robust model also helps decision makers discover areas where the university is performing well, or needs to pay more attention. In addition, the university can benchmark its own performance against its peers in order to set up a roadmap for improvement. It is proved that this is the first index in the literature which truly evaluates the effectiveness of university knowledge and technology transfer from an organizational perspective. Practitioners in the area of academic technology transfer can also apply this evaluation model to quantitatively evaluate the performance of their institutions for strategic decision-making purposes.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Footnotes
1
A typical example is the Bessemer steel process. Bessemer sold a patent for his advanced steel making process and was sued by the purchasers who couldn’t get it to work. In the end, Bessemer set up his own steel company because he knew how to do it, even though he could not convey it to his patent users. Bessemer’s company became one of the largest in the world and changed the face of steel making (source: wikipedia.org).
 
2
In 2007, the university spent $1.1 billion in research expenditures and received $1,026,000 of licensing income for the corresponding year (source: AUTM report, 2007).
 
3
Rogers et al. [14]: see page 692 for definition.
Rogers et al. [15]: see footnote 4 in his paper for definition.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.CrossRef Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 627–655.CrossRef Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 627–655.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114.CrossRef Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Gopalakrishnan, S., & Santoro, M. D. (2004). Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: The role of key organizational factors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(1), 57–69.CrossRef Gopalakrishnan, S., & Santoro, M. D. (2004). Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: The role of key organizational factors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(1), 57–69.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 1, 44–60.CrossRef Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 1, 44–60.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Polanyi, M. (1983). Chapter 1: Tacit knowing. In The tacit dimension. Reprinted Peter Smith, Gloucester, MA. (First published Doubleday & Co, 1966). Polanyi, M. (1983). Chapter 1: Tacit knowing. In The tacit dimension. Reprinted Peter Smith, Gloucester, MA. (First published Doubleday & Co, 1966).
7.
go back to reference DeVol, R., Bedroussian, A., Babayan, A., Frye, M., Murphy, D., Phillipson, T., et al. (2006). Mind to market: A global analysis of university biotechnology transfer and commercialization. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Institute. DeVol, R., Bedroussian, A., Babayan, A., Frye, M., Murphy, D., Phillipson, T., et al. (2006). Mind to market: A global analysis of university biotechnology transfer and commercialization. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Institute.
8.
go back to reference Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2008). Formal and informal technology transfer from academia to industry: Complementarity effects and innovation performance. No. 08-080. ZEW Discussion Papers. Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2008). Formal and informal technology transfer from academia to industry: Complementarity effects and innovation performance. No. 08-080. ZEW Discussion Papers.
9.
go back to reference Agrawal, A. K. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285–302.CrossRef Agrawal, A. K. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285–302.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Geisler, E., & Rubenstein, A. (1989). University-industry relations: A review of major issues. In Cooperative research and development: The industry-university–government relationship. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 43–59. Geisler, E., & Rubenstein, A. (1989). University-industry relations: A review of major issues. In Cooperative research and development: The industry-university–government relationship. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 43–59.
11.
go back to reference Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned from quantitative and qualitative research in the US and the UK Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics, Number 0609. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy. Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned from quantitative and qualitative research in the US and the UK Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics, Number 0609. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy.
12.
go back to reference Warren, A., Hanke, R., & Trotzer, D. (2008). Models for university technology transfer: Resolving conflicts between mission and methods and the dependency on geographic location. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(2), 219–232.CrossRef Warren, A., Hanke, R., & Trotzer, D. (2008). Models for university technology transfer: Resolving conflicts between mission and methods and the dependency on geographic location. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(2), 219–232.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Link, A., & Siegel, D. (2005). Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. The European Journal of Finance, 11(3), 169–181.CrossRef Link, A., & Siegel, D. (2005). Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. The European Journal of Finance, 11(3), 169–181.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Rogers, E. M., Hall, B. J., Hashimoto, M., Steffensen, M., Speakman, K. L., & Timko, M. K. (1999). Technology transfer from university-based research centers: The University of New Mexico experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 687–705.CrossRef Rogers, E. M., Hall, B. J., Hashimoto, M., Steffensen, M., Speakman, K. L., & Timko, M. K. (1999). Technology transfer from university-based research centers: The University of New Mexico experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 687–705.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Rogers, E. M., Yin, J., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at US research universities. The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, XII, 47–80. Rogers, E. M., Yin, J., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at US research universities. The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, XII, 47–80.
16.
go back to reference Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
17.
go back to reference Henriksen, A. D. P. (1997). A technology assessment primer for management of technology. International Journal of Technology Management, 13(5), 615–638.CrossRef Henriksen, A. D. P. (1997). A technology assessment primer for management of technology. International Journal of Technology Management, 13(5), 615–638.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Rogers, E. M., Takegami, S., & Yin, J. (2001). Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21(4), 253–261.CrossRef Rogers, E. M., Takegami, S., & Yin, J. (2001). Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21(4), 253–261.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Sorensen, J. A. T., & Chambers, D. A. (2007). Evaluating academic technology transfer performance by how well access to knowledge is facilitated - defining an access metric. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 534–547.CrossRef Sorensen, J. A. T., & Chambers, D. A. (2007). Evaluating academic technology transfer performance by how well access to knowledge is facilitated - defining an access metric. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 534–547.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Decision-Making Tools: University Technology Transfer Effectiveness
Author
Thien Anh Tran
Copyright Year
2016
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18558-3_12