Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cash, community and coordination: the triple-C categorisation of technology transfer office organisational philosophy

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although Technology Transfer as a research topic has become more and more popular, the mission and vision statements of technology transfer offices (TTOs) and the impact they have on the technology transfer processes leading to the creation of spin-offs, is still unfamiliar terrain. As mission and vision are incorporated into the operational philosophy of a TTO, this paper aims to find out what operational philosophies currently exist and if they can be aggregated into a typology. An empirical study was performed through a survey of 51 European TTOs, representing different academic disciplines and affiliations. The results shows that currently, three operational philosophy types exist within European TTOs: Cash, Community and Cooperation. Consequently, the degree to which the licensing negotiation strategies for the creation of spin-offs matched the typology that TTOs proclaimed to adhere to was studied. The results show that, besides mission and vision, also the risk averseness of TTOs plays a major role in the operational philosophy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The authors, however, believe that technology transfer itself should be considered a long term strategy for academic institutions. The creation and development of a TTO cannot be considered as a short term solution for funding problems, as a carefully built and maintained technology transfer strategy will result in a consistent income over the long term.

References

  • Aczel, A., & Sounderpandian, J. (2007). Complete business statistics (5th editio). McGraw-Hill.

  • Andrews, D., & Preece, J. (2003). Electronic survey methodology : A case study in reaching hard-to-involve internet users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16(2), 185–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, D. G. (2005). Value , Valuation , and Valorisation. Rotterdam-Dordrecht. Retrieved from http://www.innovativedutch.com/downloads/ValueValuationandValorisation.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2018

  • Audretsch, D., & Caiazza, R. (2016). Technology transfer and entrepreneurship : Cross-national analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1247–1259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9441-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bart, C. K., & Baetz, M. C. (1998). The relationship between mission statements and firm performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Studies, 35(6), 823–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bart, C. K., & Taggar, S. (1998). A model of the impact of mission rationale, conten, process and alignment on firm performance (innovation research working group no. 73). Hamilton, Ontario.

  • Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities , arts and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education, 59(5), 567–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, M. J., & Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: licensing fees vs. equity. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conti, A., & Gaule, P. (2011). Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European paradox. Research Policy, 40(1), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dana, L.-P., & Dana, T. E. (2005). Expanding the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship research. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2005.006071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cleyn, S. H., Tietz, R., Braet, J., & Schefczyck, M. (2010). Report on the status of academic entrepreneurship in Europe 1985–2008. Puurs: UniBook.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Smidt, S., & Prinzie, A. (2009). Does your mission statement have any value? An explorative analysis of the effectiveness of mission statements from a communication prespective (No. D/2009/7012/20). Ghent.

  • Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15(2), 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510590360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, C., & Cunningham, J. A. (2016). Inside the university technology transfer office : Mission statement analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 1235–1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9419-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New Brunswick: AldineTransaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, M., Knockaert, M., & Soppe, B. (2017). Bridging the science-market gap : Towards a typology of technology transfer ecosystems in academia. In Technology Transfer Society Conference. Washington, DC.

  • Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guena, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European University research funding : Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hladchenko, M. (2016). Knowledge valorisation a route of knowledge that ends in surplus (an example of the Netherlands). International Journal of Educational Management, 30(5), 668–678. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2014-0167.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9537-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, D. J., Maida, M., Farkas, A., Alandete-Saez, M., & Bennett, A. B. (2017). Technology transfer in the Americas: Common and divergent practices among major research universities and public sector institutions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1307–1333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9516-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P., & Barrows Jr., E. A. (2008). Developing the strategy : Vision, value gaps|, and analysis. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

  • Kemp, S., & Dwyer, L. (2003). Mission statements of international airlines: A content analysis. Tourism Management, 24(6), 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00049-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledford, G. E., Jr., Wendenhof, J. R., & Strahley, J. T. (1995). Realizing a corporate philosophy. Organizational Dynamics, 23(3), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardo UK National Agency. (2004). Valorisation Guidance Note for Applicants and Projects ( Procedure B ). Birmingham: ECOTEC Research & Consulting Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Wild, A. (2015). The institutionalization of third stream activities in UK higher education: The role of discourse and metrics. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcinkeviciene, V., Mikalauskiene, B., & Peleckiene, A. (2010). Concept of “ Organizational Philosophy ” Term in Modern Society. In International Scientific Conference UNITECH ‘10 (p. 553). Grabovo: Techničeski Universitet Grabovo.

  • Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meysman, J., De Cleyn, S. H., & Braet, J. (2017). Identifying the key processes for technology transfer through spin-offs in academic institutions : A case study in Flanders and the Netherlands. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 15(3), 291–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K., Mcadam, M., & Mcadam, R. (2014). The changing university business model : A stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44(3), 265–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F., Pasquini, M., & Toschi, L. (2015). From the lab to the stock market ? The characteristics and impact of university- oriented seed funds in Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 948–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9385-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9121-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-9010-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. A., & David, F. (1987). Corporate Mission statements : The bottom line. The Academy of Management Executive, 1(2), 109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro, R., Langa, P. V., & Pausits, A. (2015). The institutionalization of universities’ third mission: Introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2015.1044551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28(8), 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, F. (2017). The drivers of efficient knowledge transfer performance: Evidence from British universities. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 6(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bex054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, V., & Matt, M. (2016). Development of academic entrepreneurship in a non-mature context: The role of the university as a hub-organisation. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28(9–10), 724–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1247915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheshkin, D. J. (1997). In T. Pletscher (Ed.), Handbook of parametrical and nonparametrical statistical procedures. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/grm036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. a., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003a). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(03)00007-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003b). 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 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2007). Intellectual property: The assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grm033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. M., & Rogers, P. S. (1995). Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: The Mission statement. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 223–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vehovar, V., & Lozar Manfreda, K. (2017). Overview: Online surveys. In N. G. Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (2nd edition) (pp. 146–161). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinig, T., & Lips, D. (2015). Measuring the performance of university technology transfer using meta data approach : The case of Dutch universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1034–1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9389-0.

  • Vlaamse Regering. (2014). Regeerakkoord vlaamse regering 2014–2019.

  • Wartnaby, D. (2014). Organisational philosophies: Mission , Vision and Values Statements Introductory Thoughts.

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3th Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. Dr. Johan Springael for the assistance in finding a fitting statistical test for rank attributed data. We also want to extend our gratitude to the TTO experts that participated in our study. However, because of operational secrecy, they will remain anonymous.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, B-2000, Antwerp, Belgium

    Jasmine Meysman & Johan Braet

  2. Imec, Kapeldreef 75, B-3001, Leuven, Belgium

    Sven H. De Cleyn

Authors
  1. Jasmine Meysman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sven H. De Cleyn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johan Braet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jasmine Meysman.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meysman, J., De Cleyn, S.H. & Braet, J. Cash, community and coordination: the triple-C categorisation of technology transfer office organisational philosophy. Int Entrep Manag J 15, 815–835 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0555-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0555-y

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation