The university is the classroom: teaching and learning technology commercialization at a technological university

In 2013, the University of Strathclyde became the first Scottish university to receive the prestigious THES UK Entrepreneurial University of the Year award. In this article, I describe how successful technology commercialization education in this leading UK-based technological university is deeply dependent on the state of the university’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. Two case studies illustrate the relatively minor “supporting” role that conventional teaching plays in the practice of technology commercialization, and the major role that a comprehensive university entrepreneurial ecosystem can play. Lessons drawn from teaching and learning technology commercialization at the University of Strathclyde are discussed. These include “teaching by stealth” through the ecosystem, basing students’ class assignments on their own technology, and the use of local role models in class. I conclude by summarizing today’s challenges and opportunities facing Strathclyde’s entrepreneurial ecosystem.     

Proof of Concept Centers in the United States: an exploratory look

In this paper we identify the population of 32 US university-related Proof of Concept Centers (PoCCs), and we present a model of technology development that identifies the economic role of PoCCs within that model. We examine the broad technology transfer challenges that PoCCs have been established to address. Further, we argue that PoCCs are a growing technology infrastructure in the United States, and they are important as a possible element of our national innovation system.     

University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: faculty and students in spinoffs

This research informs our understanding of the technology commercialization process in university spinoffs, focusing in particular on student involvement in the early phases of the spinoff development process and on the impact of the larger university ecosystem. Detailed case studies indicate that graduate and post-doctoral students are important participants in university spinoffs. We offer a typology of spinoff development with four pathways, based on the varying roles of faculty, experienced entrepreneurs, PhD/post-doctoral students, and business students. The effects of the larger university ecosystem, beyond the university technology transfer office and the university’s commercialization policies, are also considered, including an examination of programs and practices that may influence this process. We close with a discussion of guidelines for technology transfer and spinoff development at universities, based on the findings of this research.     

Managing and incentivizing research commercialization in Chinese Universities

Research shows that there are important institutional underpinnings for building university–industry linkages. This paper aims to understand how China is developing the relevant organizational structures and incentives in its universities. What academic institutions shape the scope and channels of university–industry linkages? What incentives do universities provide to encourage and facilitate faculty engagement with industry? My analysis is accomplished through content analysis of university documents and in-depth interviews with personnel in two top institutions—Fudan University and Shanghai Jiaotong University, supplemented by official statistics. It shows that the hybrid organizational structure to manage technology transfer is a product of historical legacy and institutional learning—parts uniquely Chinese and parts adapted from the West. Faculty incentives also have varied effects. In spite of being enticed to disclose inventions and pursue commercialization, faculty remains keener on scholarly publications.     

Closing the divide: accelerating technology commercialization by catalyzing the university entrepreneurial ecosystem with I-Corps™

In recent years, universities have seen an increasing amount of activity in entrepreneurship and commercialization, not only for students, but for faculty as well. Traditionally, these initiatives have been separate, such that programs and curriculum have been focused on supporting just students or just faculty. In 2012, the National Science Foundation (NSF) launched the NSF I-Corps? program, an innovative funding program that not only offered principle investigators (PIs) funding, but also exposed PIs to an innovation/entrepreneurship curriculum as well. The University of Michigan (U-M) was one of the first two NSF I-Corps? Nodes funded in 2012 and has leveraged the program to catalyze the entrepreneurial ecosystem. This paper describes the growth of this entrepreneurial ecosystem since 1983, the call of entrepreneurship in the U-M College of Engineering and describes the role the U-M NSF I-Corps? program has played across the university. The paper concludes with lessons learned and recommendations to administrators and policy makers considering more active promotion of academic entrepreneurship and commercialization in universities.     

The commercialization of academic patents: black boxes,pipelines, and Rubik’s cubes

Drawing on histories of technological innovation originating from research by faculty at The Pennsylvania State University and Johns Hopkins University, this paper presents evidence for a “technology” as well as an “intellectual property rights” research approach to the commercialization of academic patents. By describing how inventor and firm activities and strategies affect the technical development and commercial positioning of university patents, a technology focus adds depth to the general proposition that university patents are embryonic technologies. It likewise serves as an analytical probe to reconsider other mainstream propositions about university technology transfer.     

Commercializing biomedical science in a rapidly changing “triple-helix” nexus: The experience of the National University of Singapore

Since the late 1990s, the Singapore government had embarked on a significant push to develop the city-state into a major life-science R&D and industrial cluster in Asia. Although a major focus of this new thrust involves attracting leading life science companies overseas to establish operations in Singapore and developing new public life science research institutions to attract overseas life science research talents (Finegold, Wong, and Cheah (2004)), the local universities are expected to play an important role as well. In particular, the National University of Singapore (NUS), the leading university in Singapore, has also started to pursue major strategic change to become more “entrepreneurial”, and identified life science as a major focus for technology commercialization as well. Adapting the “Triple-Helix” framework of Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhardt, & Terra (2000), this paper examines the significant changes in the university-government-industry “Triple-Helix” nexus for life science in Singapore, and their consequent impact on life science commercialization at NUS. Implications for universities in other late-comer countries seeking to catch up in the global biotech race are discussed.      

Signaling in academic ventures: the role of technology transfer offices and university funds

University spinoffs, an important subset of high-tech start-up companies, operate in a context characterized by marked information asymmetries that limit their chances of obtaining financing. Given the uncertainty and imperfect information that characterize these investment opportunities, signals about their potential value deserve further attention. We investigate the relationship between the main stakeholders involved in the process of creating a university spinoff—that is, the academic founders, the university technology-transfer office, and private investors—focusing on the role of public grants as effective signals that attract private venture capital (VC) funding. Using the database of all spinoff companies established to exploit inventions assigned to the University of Michigan from 1999 to 2010, we determine how the funds provided through the university technology-transfer office influence VC follow-on funding and consequent spinoff growth, controlling for the spinoff’s technology, the founders’ human capital, and the network’s resources. The empirical results support a signaling effect of the commercialization funds provided by the university and suggest an indirect impact on the growth of the spinoff’s sales through the mediating effect of VC financing.     

A legal perspective on university technology transfer

In the thirty-five years after passage of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980, a robust literature has documented the emergence of university technology transfer as a critical mechanism for the dissemination and commercialization of new technology stemming from federally-funded research. Missing from these investigations, however, is what this paper terms the legal perspective, an understanding of how the law and its attendant mechanisms impact university technology transfer. Specifically, the paper reviews the extant legal scholarship and provides examples of how case law, legal structures, and the unique nature of intellectual property law affects technology transfer, as well as higher education policy and management. Throughout, we propose critical questions for future investigation, which serve to form a cross-disciplinary research agenda that can contribute fresh insights to scholarly and policy discussions related to the role of universities in economic and social development.     

University reputation and technology commercialization: evidence from nanoscale science

We study how the scientific reputations and technology transfer policies of universities affect patenting by university researchers, with particular regard to whether they assign patent ownership to their university or to an outside firm. Using data on the career output of over 33,000 researchers in nanosciences, we find a strongly positive relationship of university reputation in nanosciences with the number of university-assigned patents, but almost a negligible association with firm-assignment of patents. University technology transfer office resources are related positively to both types of patents, but with diminishing returns. In contrast, the share of license revenue offered upfront to researchers is positively associated with university-assigned patents, but negatively related to firm-assigned patents. Taken together, our results suggest that universities that streamline their technology transfer efforts and improve their research reputation through support for basic research will see long-term success in technology commercialization.     

Commercialization strategies of technology: lessons from Silicon Valley

Science and technology incubators play an increasing role in contributing to the entrepreneurial, venture and economic development. This paper is concerned with the strategies for technology commercialization and supports of new venture development. The study has applied the cluster-based strategies of the US Silicon Valley to the case of Thailand. The findings highlight the role of the National Science and Technology Development Agency’s Science Park and the National Innovation Agency’s Innovation Park in supporting technology commercialization and development of the national innovation system. The future challenges to create effective system for entrepreneurial development and implications for entrepreneurial business management are discussed herein.     

Who Develops a University Invention? The Impact of Tacit Knowledge and Licensing Policies

In this paper, I propose a theoretical model to illustrate how the inventor know-how affects whether the inventor starts a firm to develop her idea or licenses an invention to an established firm for development. Inventor start-ups are characterized as development organizations that serve a temporary role in the invention–innovation process, developing an invention until they can sell the developed invention to an established firm that owns requisite complementary assets for commercialization. This model is then used to analyze the role and impact of a university technology transfer office (TTO) on this process to understand how TTO’s may both positively and negatively impact the transaction. The model posits a general theory of inventor–entrepreneur behavior in university and corporate research labs based on two factors: the importance of know-how and the distribution of inventors’ personal costs to transfer that know-how.     

What drives patenting and commerzialisation activity at East German universities? The role of new public policy, institutional environment and individual prior knowledge

New public policy enacted in Germany in 2002, intends to increase the number of patent registrations of academic entrepreneurs, and facilitate the commercialization and spillover of innovation generated at public universities. Results from a survey amongst university patentees in two new German Laender, Thuringia and Saxony, accomplished in 2009, are reported focusing on government policy, university support, and the role of technology transfer in an organizational and cultural context. Using a two-step cluster analysis, the survey data are used to profile the patentees and to investigate whether personal attributes and institutional environment contribute to academic entrepreneurship. Empirical findings show that advanced age and non-university working experience contribute significantly to entrepreneurial behavior. New public policy contributes to facilitate patent registrations, but professional expertise for the commercialization of knowledge as well as financial and organizational support schemes needs further improvement. This explains why patent registrations have slightly increased but also why universities report very low levels of commercialization through entrepreneurship. We offer policy recommendations to overcome the existent barriers, among them, the professionalization of technology transfer or targeted marketing for registered patents.     

The transfer and commercialisation of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of university and company researchers

Nanotechnology has been proposed as the next general purpose technology and engine for growth for the 21th century. Increasing public R&D investments are foremost reflected in the growth of scientific publications, while nanotechnology still is in an uncertain phase of development with various directions of commercialization pending. This paper focuses on the challenges, modes and outcomes of nanotechnology as an emerging science-based field in Finland. The paper contributes by interrogating how challenges and modes of nanotechnology transfer differ across universities and companies and determine outcomes broadly defined. It uses survey data covering university and company researchers in the Finnish nanotechnology community. The results show significant differences in the perceptions of researchers across these organisations, and highlight specific challenges and modes as determinants of outcomes. The specificities of nanotechnology are also assessed.

Transferring superconductivity technology at a national-laboratory user center

Department of Energy national laboratories have long sought to expedite the transfer of commercially viable technologies to the private sector through publications and reports, workshops, the licensing of inventions, and personnel exchanges and other cooperative agreements between laboratories, industry, and universities. This article focuses on the transfer of patentable technologies through a case study of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory high temperature superconductivity Pilot Center (HTSC-PC). The Pilot Center was established in 1988 to encourage rapid incubation and commercialization of high temperature superconductivity technologies. The success of this venture will hinge upon assuring compatibility of objectives between the center and likely industrial participants and directing center efforts toward the aspirations of potential collaborators and the ultimate consumers of HTSC technologies. Lessons for general multi-program-laboratory technology transfer include the need for a model of collaboration that emphasizes openness and non-rigidity and facilitates the streamlining of information vital to the cross-fertilization of ideas, continuing reform of the licensing and royalty-sharing process, and simplifying the process of scientific exchange with external constituencies. David Lewis Feldman has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He serves on the staff of the Energy Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee where he does research on the environmental impacts of energy developments, international and comparative environmental policy, environmental regulation, and technology policy. He is the author of several articles and recently completed a book on natural resources policy in the US. He also serves as senior editor ofForum for Applied Research and Public Policy published at the University of Tennessee.     

The business of translation: The Johns Hopkins University Discovery to Market program

This article describes the design and implementation of a technology commercialization course at a major research university. It discusses the integration between the scientific research enterprise and the business of innovation through an practice based course, the resources required, the challenges encountered, and the results of the initiative. Policy implications from the lessons learned are discussed. Suggestions on how such a program could be implemented in other institutions of higher learning, together with thoughts on future directions and improvements are offered.     

Scientist entrepreneurship across scientific fields

Knowledge generated in universities can serve as an important base for the commercialization of innovation. One mechanism for commercialization is the creation of a new company by a scientist. We shed light on this process by examining the role of scientist characteristics, access to resources and key university conditions in driving the likelihood of a scientist to start a company. Our sample comprises 1,899 university scientists across six different scientific fields. We make a methodological contribution by using self-reported data from the scientists themselves, whereas most previous research relied on university or public data. Our consideration of six scientific fields is a substantive contribution and reveals that scientist startups are heterogeneous in nature. Our findings are largely consistent with extant research on the role of individual and university variables in scientist entrepreneurship; in addition, we uncover the novel finding that the type of research field is also a key driver of scientist startup activity.     

Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Academic Patent and Licensing Behavior: An Exploratory Study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities

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.     

Effectiveness of university technology transfer: an organizational population ecology view of a maturing supplier industry

In this article, we propose that universities engaged in technology transfer activities can be viewed as the University Technology Commercialization (UTC) industry. We use an organizational population ecology perspective to outline an economic model for the analysis of the UTC industry. We introduce cohort analysis and time-lagged comparisons of multiple stages in the commercialization process to examine the efficiency and productivity of the industry. Our main source of data is the Association of University Technology Managers licensing surveys from 1991 through 2004. Results indicate that industry growth is slowing, and that the technology transfer process is becoming less efficient; opportunities for individual and/or collective action are noted.     

Illinois plan for technology transferat Illinois State University

Illinois has enacted legislation with a directive to enhance the economic development of companies in the state by encouraging new-product development. The policies and strategies used at Illinois State University to carry out an increased participation in technology transfer leading to enhanced industry/university interaction are presented. Identifiable factors leading to local project success have been the university's ability to develop inter-departmental research groups, provide the proper motivation to the group members, and set up a structure for commercialization of the new products developed by these groups.