Skip to main content
Top

2012 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

4. The Cooperative Strategy of Technology Transfer Offices: A Longitudinal Study

Authors : Mireille Matt, Véronique Schaeffer

Published in: Technology Transfer in a Global Economy

Publisher: Springer US

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

search-config
loading …

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.

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
Before 2009, the TTO belonged to University Louis Pasteur and after to University of Strasbourg. To simplify the presentation of the case, we will use “University of Strasbourg” for the two periods.
 
2
Even if it is not the focus in this subsection, we would like to underline that the creation of the University of Strasbourg (merging process) in 2009 allowed the TTO to grow again, to reintegrate a financial section, and to build a more flexible management system. In 2011, the TTO employed again the same number of personnel than in 2005: 14 persons.
 
Literature
go back to reference Acworth EB (2008) University–industry engagement: the formation of the knowledge integration community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Res Policy 37(8):1241–1254CrossRef Acworth EB (2008) University–industry engagement: the formation of the knowledge integration community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Res Policy 37(8):1241–1254CrossRef
go back to reference 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 26:21–35CrossRef 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 26:21–35CrossRef
go back to reference 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 34:369–384CrossRef 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 34:369–384CrossRef
go back to reference 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):61–72CrossRef 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):61–72CrossRef
go back to reference De Bondt R (1997) Spillovers and innovative activities. Int J Ind Organ 15(1):1–28CrossRef De Bondt R (1997) Spillovers and innovative activities. Int J Ind Organ 15(1):1–28CrossRef
go back to reference Debackere K, Veugelers R (2005) The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Res Policy 34:321–342CrossRef Debackere K, Veugelers R (2005) The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Res Policy 34:321–342CrossRef
go back to reference Di Gregorio D, Shane B (2003) Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Res Policy 32:209–227CrossRef Di Gregorio D, Shane B (2003) Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Res Policy 32:209–227CrossRef
go back to reference Franklin S, Wright M, Lockett A (2001) Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. J Technol Trans 26(1–2):127–141CrossRef Franklin S, Wright M, Lockett A (2001) Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. J Technol Trans 26(1–2):127–141CrossRef
go back to reference George G (2005) Learning to be capable: patenting and licensing at the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation 1925–2002. Ind Corp Change 14(1):119–151CrossRef George G (2005) Learning to be capable: patenting and licensing at the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation 1925–2002. Ind Corp Change 14(1):119–151CrossRef
go back to reference Geuna A, Muscio A (2009) The governance of university knowledge transfer: a critical review of the literature. Minerva 47:93–114CrossRef Geuna A, Muscio A (2009) The governance of university knowledge transfer: a critical review of the literature. Minerva 47:93–114CrossRef
go back to reference Jackson S, Audretsch DB (2004) The Indiana university advanced research and technology institute: a case study. J Technol Trans 29:119–124CrossRef Jackson S, Audretsch DB (2004) The Indiana university advanced research and technology institute: a case study. J Technol Trans 29:119–124CrossRef
go back to reference 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):535–567CrossRef 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):535–567CrossRef
go back to reference Jensen R, Thursby MC (2001) Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. Am Econ Rev 91(1):240–259CrossRef Jensen R, Thursby MC (2001) Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. Am Econ Rev 91(1):240–259CrossRef
go back to reference 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 21:1271–1300CrossRef 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 21:1271–1300CrossRef
go back to reference Katz MJ, Ordover JA (1990) R&D cooperation and competition. Brookings papers on economic activity: microeconomics, pp 137–203 vol 1 Katz MJ, Ordover JA (1990) R&D cooperation and competition. Brookings papers on economic activity: microeconomics, pp 137–203 vol 1
go back to reference Lach S, Schankerman M (2004) Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. J Eur Econ Assoc 2(2–3):252–264CrossRef Lach S, Schankerman M (2004) Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. J Eur Econ Assoc 2(2–3):252–264CrossRef
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
go back to reference 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):169–182CrossRef 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):169–182CrossRef
go back to reference 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 16:641–655CrossRef 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 16:641–655CrossRef
go back to reference Litan RE, Mitchell L, Reedy EJ (2007) Commercializing university innovations: alternative approaches. NBER working paper Litan RE, Mitchell L, Reedy EJ (2007) Commercializing university innovations: alternative approaches. NBER working paper
go back to reference Lockett A, Wright M (2005) Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Res Policy 34:1043–1057CrossRef Lockett A, Wright M (2005) Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Res Policy 34:1043–1057CrossRef
go back to reference Markman GD, Phan PH, Balkin DB, Gianiodis PT (2005a) Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. J Bus Venturing 20(2):241–263CrossRef Markman GD, Phan PH, Balkin DB, Gianiodis PT (2005a) Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. J Bus Venturing 20(2):241–263CrossRef
go back to reference Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan HP, Balkin DB (2005b) Innovation speed: transferring university technology to market. Res Policy 34:1058–1075CrossRef Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan HP, Balkin DB (2005b) Innovation speed: transferring ­university technology to market. Res Policy 34:1058–1075CrossRef
go back to reference Markman GD, Siegel DS, Wright M (2008a) Research technology commercialization. J Manage Stud 45(8):1401–1423CrossRef Markman GD, Siegel DS, Wright M (2008a) Research technology commercialization. J Manage Stud 45(8):1401–1423CrossRef
go back to reference Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH (2008b) Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 55:29–36CrossRef Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH (2008b) Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 55:29–36CrossRef
go back to reference Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH (2009) Supply-side innovation and technology commercialization. J Manage Stud 46(4):625–649CrossRef Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH (2009) Supply-side innovation and technology commercialization. J Manage Stud 46(4):625–649CrossRef
go back to reference Muscio A (2010) What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. J Technol Trans 35:181–202CrossRef Muscio A (2010) What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. J Technol Trans 35:181–202CrossRef
go back to reference O’Shea RP, Allen TJ, Chevalier A, Roche F (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Res Policy 34:994–1009CrossRef O’Shea RP, Allen TJ, Chevalier A, Roche F (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Res Policy 34:994–1009CrossRef
go back to reference 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 37:1–16 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 37:1–16
go back to reference 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):1695–1711CrossRef 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):1695–1711CrossRef
go back to reference 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):77–144CrossRef 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):77–144CrossRef
go back to reference Polt W (2001) Benchmarking Industry-science relations: the role of framework conditions. Final report prepared for EC, DG enterprise Polt W (2001) Benchmarking Industry-science relations: the role of framework conditions. Final report prepared for EC, DG enterprise
go back to reference 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):291–311CrossRef 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):291–311CrossRef
go back to reference Rothaermel FT, Agung SD, Jiang L (2007) University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Ind Corp Change 16(4):691–791CrossRef Rothaermel FT, Agung SD, Jiang L (2007) University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Ind Corp Change 16(4):691–791CrossRef
go back to reference Salant SW, Schaffer G (1998) Optimal asymmetric strategies in research joint venture. Int J Ind Organ 16:195–208CrossRef Salant SW, Schaffer G (1998) Optimal asymmetric strategies in research joint venture. Int J Ind Organ 16:195–208CrossRef
go back to reference Shane S (2002) Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Manage Sci 48(1):122–137CrossRef Shane S (2002) Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Manage Sci 48(1):122–137CrossRef
go back to reference 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 14:111–133CrossRef 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 14:111–133CrossRef
go back to reference 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 32:27–48CrossRef 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 32:27–48CrossRef
go back to reference 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 21:115–142CrossRef 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 21:115–142CrossRef
go back to reference 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):640–660CrossRef 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):640–660CrossRef
go back to reference 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):719–731CrossRef 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):719–731CrossRef
go back to reference Thursby JG, Kemp S (2002) Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Res Policy 31:109–124CrossRef Thursby JG, Kemp S (2002) Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Res Policy 31:109–124CrossRef
go back to reference Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2002) Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Manage Sci 48(1):90–104CrossRef Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2002) Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Manage Sci 48(1):90–104CrossRef
go back to reference 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.199–232 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.199–232
go back to reference Thursby JG, Jensen R, Thursby MC (2001) Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities. J Technol Trans 26:59–72CrossRef Thursby JG, Jensen R, Thursby MC (2001) Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities. J Technol Trans 26:59–72CrossRef
go back to reference Wright M, Lockett A, Clarysse B, Binks M (2006) University spin-out companies and venture capital. Res Policy 35:481–501CrossRef Wright M, Lockett A, Clarysse B, Binks M (2006) University spin-out companies and venture capital. Res Policy 35:481–501CrossRef
go back to reference 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):1188–1204CrossRef 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):1188–1204CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Cooperative Strategy of Technology Transfer Offices: A Longitudinal Study
Authors
Mireille Matt
Véronique Schaeffer
Copyright Year
2012
Publisher
Springer US
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6102-9_4