Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ardichvili, A., Harmon, B., Cardozo, R., Reynolds, P., & Williams, M. (1998). New venture growth: Functional differentiation and the need for human resource development interventions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9(1), 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of University Technology Managers. (2005a). AUTM licensing survey FY 2004. Norwalk, CT: Association of University Technology Managers. (We have utilized AUTM Licensing Survey Reports with survey data covering each fiscal year from 1991 through 2004. To save space, we provide a full reference to the FY 2004 Survey Full Report).

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of University Technology Managers. (2005b). AUTM 2004 salary survey. Norwalk, CT: Association of University Technology Managers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 627–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Consumer price index conversion factors for 2005. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/.

  • Cardozo, R., Elder, T., & Harmon, B. (1996). When does growth pay? In P. Reynolds, et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Babson Park, MA: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardozo, R., & Engleman, R. (2004). University technology and new business opportunities. In P. Reynolds, et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Babson Park, MA: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 199–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of UK university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34, 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, N., & Lewis, V. (1983). The five stages of small business growth. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 61, 30–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P. (1997). The knowledge factor: A survey of universities. The Economist, October, 4, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, A., & Kretschmer, M. (2007). Can ideas be capital? Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 573–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, G. (1998). Accessed at: http://www.yale.edu/ocr/images/docs/ocr_report_96-98.pdf.

  • Graff, G., Heiman, A., & Zilberman, D. (2002). University research and offices of technology transfer. California Management Review, 45(1), 88–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2009). Patents and technology markets. Accessed at: http://ftc.gov/bc/workshops/ipmarketplace/apr17/docs/sgraham.pdf.

  • Hall, B., Thoma, G., & Torrisi, S. (2007). The market value of patents and R&DC: Evidence from European firms. Working paper #13426. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics of organizational population density. legitimation and competition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herath, H. S. B., & Park, C. S. (1999). Economic analysis of R&D projects: An options approach. Engineering Economist, 44(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, P., & Webster, J. (2007). Industry dynamics: Setting the scene. Australian Economic Review, 40(1), 80–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2006). Exploring corporate strategy. NY: Prentice Hall International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, R. (2003). Lambert review of business-university collaboration. London: HM Treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, A. (1997). Higher education’s new status as a mature industry. Chronicle of Higher Education, 43, A48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 822–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B., & Ziedonis, A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelsen, L. (2004). A US perspective on technology transfer: The changing role of the university. Nature Reviews: Molecular Cell Biology, 5, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niosi, J. (2006). Introduction to the symposium: Universities as a source of commercial technology. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 399–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. (2004). R&D funding sources and university technology transfer: What is stimulating universities to be more entrepreneurial? Research in Higher Education, 45(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahal, A., & Rabelo, L. (2006). Assessment framework for the evaluation and prioritization of university inventions for licensing and commercialization. Engineering Management Journal, 18(4), 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, D. (2006). Designing successful venture capital funds for area development: Bridging the hierarchy & equity gaps. Applied Research in Economic Development, 3(2), 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Universities. (2008). Education encyclopedia—StateUniversity.com: Retrieved on November 14, 2008 at: http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2366/Research-Universities.html.

  • Rogan, J. (2003). Statement before the subcommittee on courts, the internet and intellectual property, committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives. Accessed at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/om/speeches/stratplan2003apr03rogan.htm.

  • Serrano, C. (2006). The market for intellectual property: Evidence from the transfer of patents. Accessed at www.chass.utoronto.ca/~serrano/eco2404/transfers_kelowna.pdf.

  • Siegel, D., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D., Waldman, D., Atwater, L., & Link, A. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D., Wright, M., Chapple, W., & Lockett, A. (2008). Assessing the relative performance of university technology transfer in the US and US: A stochastic distance function approach. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(7), 719–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smilor, R., O’Donnell, N., Stein, G., & Welborn, R. S., III. (2007). The research university and the development of high-technology centers in the United States. Economic Development Quarterly, 21(3), 203–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, S. (2009). The impact of the patent system on the market for technology. Accessed at: http://ftc.gov/bc/workshops/ipmarketplace/mar18/docs/sstern.pdf.

  • Stienbach, N. (2005). Just how many universities are there in the US? Accessed at http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2005-05/2005-05-11-voal.cfm?renderfo.

  • Watanabe, Y. (2009). Patent licensing and the emergence of a new patent market. Houston Business and Tax Law Journal, IX, 446–481.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge with gratitude the comments and suggestions of anonymous reviewers and the editor, whose input contributed significantly to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandre Ardichvili.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cardozo, R., Ardichvili, A. & Strauss, A. Effectiveness of university technology transfer: an organizational population ecology view of a maturing supplier industry. J Technol Transf 36, 173–202 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9151-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9151-1

Keywords

JEL classification

Navigation