Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Technology Transfer in a Global Economy pp 51–72Cite as

The Cooperative Strategy of Technology Transfer Offices: A Longitudinal Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2269 Accesses

Part of the book series: International Studies in Entrepreneurship ((ISEN,volume 28))

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.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 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. 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.

References

  • Acworth EB (2008) University–industry engagement: the formation of the knowledge integration community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Res Policy 37(8):1241–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:21–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 34:369–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):61–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bondt R (1997) Spillovers and innovative activities. Int J Ind Organ 15(1):1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere K, Veugelers R (2005) The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Res Policy 34:321–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio D, Shane B (2003) Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Res Policy 32:209–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin S, Wright M, Lockett A (2001) Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. J Technol Trans 26(1–2):127–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George G (2005) Learning to be capable: patenting and licensing at the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation 1925–2002. Ind Corp Change 14(1):119–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna A, Muscio A (2009) The governance of university knowledge transfer: a critical review of the literature. Minerva 47:93–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson S, Audretsch DB (2004) The Indiana university advanced research and technology institute: a case study. J Technol Trans 29:119–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):535–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen R, Thursby MC (2001) Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. Am Econ Rev 91(1):240–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 21:1271–1300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz MJ, Ordover JA (1990) R&D cooperation and competition. Brookings papers on economic activity: microeconomics, pp 137–203 vol 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Lach S, Schankerman M (2004) Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. J Eur Econ Assoc 2(2–3):252–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):169–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 16:641–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litan RE, Mitchell L, Reedy EJ (2007) Commercializing university innovations: alternative approaches. NBER working paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett A, Wright M (2005) Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Res Policy 34:1043–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman GD, Phan PH, Balkin DB, Gianiodis PT (2005a) Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. J Bus Venturing 20(2):241–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan HP, Balkin DB (2005b) Innovation speed: transferring ­university technology to market. Res Policy 34:1058–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman GD, Siegel DS, Wright M (2008a) Research technology commercialization. J Manage Stud 45(8):1401–1423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH (2008b) Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 55:29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman GD, Gianiodis PT, Phan PH (2009) Supply-side innovation and technology commercialization. J Manage Stud 46(4):625–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muscio A (2010) What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. J Technol Trans 35:181–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea RP, Allen TJ, Chevalier A, Roche F (2005) Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Res Policy 34:994–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):1695–1711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):77–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polt W (2001) Benchmarking Industry-science relations: the role of framework conditions. Final report prepared for EC, DG enterprise

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):291–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel FT, Agung SD, Jiang L (2007) University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Ind Corp Change 16(4):691–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salant SW, Schaffer G (1998) Optimal asymmetric strategies in research joint venture. Int J Ind Organ 16:195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane S (2002) Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Manage Sci 48(1):122–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 14:111–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 32:27–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 21:115–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):640–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):719–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby JG, Kemp S (2002) Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Res Policy 31:109–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2002) Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Manage Sci 48(1):90–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursby JG, Jensen R, Thursby MC (2001) Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities. J Technol Trans 26:59–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright M, Lockett A, Clarysse B, Binks M (2006) University spin-out companies and venture capital. Res Policy 35:481–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1188–1204

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL), INRA, Université Pierre Mendès France, 47, Grenoble Cedex 09, 38040, France

    Mireille Matt

  2. Bureau d‘Economie Théorique et Appliquée, (BETA), Université de Strasbourg, 61 avenue de la Forêt Noire, Strasbourg Cedex, 67085, France

    Véronique Schaeffer

Authors
  1. Mireille Matt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Véronique Schaeffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Véronique Schaeffer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Institute of Development Strategies, Indiana University, East 10th Street 1315, Bloomington, 47405, Indiana, USA

    David B. Audretsch

  2. , Department of Management & Organization, University of Augsburg, Universitaetsstr. 16, Augsburg, 86159, Germany

    Erik E. Lehmann

  3. , Department of Economics, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, 27402, North Carolina, USA

    Albert N. Link

  4. , Department of Business Administration, University of Augsburg, Universitaetsstr. 16, Augsburg, 86159, Germany

    Alexander Starnecker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Matt, M., Schaeffer, V. (2012). The Cooperative Strategy of Technology Transfer Offices: A Longitudinal Study. In: Audretsch, D., Lehmann, E., Link, A., Starnecker, A. (eds) Technology Transfer in a Global Economy. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 28. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6102-9_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation