Abstract
This paper examines the influences of university organizational structure on technology transfer performance. The analysis treats the organizational structure of the technology-transfer office as an independent variable that accounts, in part, for measured differences in inter-institutional patenting, licensing, and sponsored research activities. We derive and investigate three hypotheses that link attributes of organizational form – information processing capacity, coordination capability and incentive alignment – to technology transfer outcomes. A detailed analysis of three major research universities – Johns Hopkins University, Pennsylvania State University, and Duke University – provides evidence of the existence of alternative organizational structures. The data also suggest that these organizational capabilities result in differences in technology transfer activity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Association of American Universities, 1986, Trends in Technology Transfer at Universities, Washington, DC: Association of American Universities.
Becker, W. and D. Lewis, 1992, The Economics of American Higher Education, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bezilla, M., 1987, The College of Agriculture at Penn State, University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Brickley, J., 1999, 'Incentive Conflicts and Contractual Restraints: Evidence from Franchising', Journal of Law and Economics 42, 745-774.
Burton, R. and B. Obel, 1998, Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design: Developing Theory for Application Second Edition, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chandler, A., 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise, Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.
Chandler, A., 1977, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chandler, A., 1990, Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Eisenberg, R., 1996, 'Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsored Research', Virginia Law Review 82, 1663-1727.
Etzkowitz, H. and L. Peters, 1991, 'Profit from Knowledge: Organizational Innovations and Normative Change in American Universities', Minerva 29, 133-166.
Feller, I., 1990, 'University Patent and Technology Licensing Strategies', Educational Policy 4, 327-334.
Feller, I., 1997, 'Technology Transfer from Universities' in John Smart ed., Handbook Higher Education, Volume XII, New York: Agathon Press, pp. 1-42.
Galunic, C. and K. Eisenhardt, 1994, Renewing the Strategy-Structure-Performance Paradigm in Research in Organizational Behavior, edited by B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Government-University Industry Research, 1986, New Alliances and Partnerships in American Science and Engineering, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Henderson, R., A. Jaffe, and M. Trajtenberg, 1998, 'Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting 1965-1988', Review of Economics and Statistics 81, 119-127.
Holmstrom, B. and P. Milgrom, 1994, 'The Firm as an Incentive Structure', American Economic Review 84, 972-991.
Hopkins, M., 2000, 'Ag Research Goes Commercial', Centre Daily Times, March 5, 2000, E1ff.
Lee, Y.S., 1998, 'University-industry collaboration on technology transfer', Research Policy 26, 6984.
Mansfield, E. and J.Y. Lee, 1996, 'The Modern University, Contributor to Industrial Innovation and Recipient of Industrial R & D Support', Research Policy 25, 1047-1058.
Matkin, G., 1990, Technology Transfer and the University, New York: McMillan Publishing Company.
Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts, 1990, 'The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization', American Economic Review 80, 511-528.
Mowery, D., R. Nelson, B. Sampat, and A. Ziedonis, 1999, 'The Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on U.S. University Research and Technology Transfer', in L. Branscomb, F. Kodama, and R. Florida eds., Industrializing Knowledge, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 269-306.
Mowery, D. and A.A. Ziedonis, 1999, 'The Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on U.S. University Research and Technology Transfer: Analyzing Data from Entrants and Incumbents', Paper presented at the Science and Technology Group, NBER Summer Institute, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Ouchi, W., 1980, 'Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans', Administrative Science Quarterly 25, 120-142.
Siegel, D., D. Waldman, and A. Link, 1999, 'Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study', NBER Working Paper 7256, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Thursby, J. and S. Kemp, 1999, 'Growth and Productive Efficiency of University Intellectual Property Licensing', Working Paper, Purdue University.
Thursby, J. and M. Thursby, 1999, 'Commercial Activity in the Ivory Tower: Prosperity and Productivity', mimeo, Purdue University.
Trajtenberg, M.R. Henderson, and A. Jaffe, 1997, 'University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window on the Basicness of Invention', Economics of Innovation and New Technology 5, 19-50.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Technology Assessment and Forecast Report, U.S. Universities and Colleges, 19.. - 98, Washington, DC., 1999.
Williamson, O., 1975, Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York, NY: The Free Press.
Williamson, O., 1985, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York, NY: The Free Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I. et al. Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Academic Patent and Licensing Behavior: An Exploratory Study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26, 21–35 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007828026904
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007828026904