The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 343–363 | Cite as

Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer

Article

Abstract

As intended, universities have gained ownership to an increased number of inventions from their labs after the enactment of Bayh-Dole act in 1980. But, how well are the universities taking advantage of the provisions of this Act? One aspect of this question is addressed empirically in this study. An analysis of the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) periodic Licensing Activity Surveys of 1995–2004 indicated that the annual income generated by licensing university inventions was 1.7% of total research expenditure in 1995 and 2.9% in 2004. Some consider this and the rate of commercialization of university inventions to be too low. A premise of this study is that the slow rate of commercialization of university inventions may be due to the lack of adequate trained staff and inventions processing capacity in University Offices of Technology Transfer (UOTT). This paper describes an empirical study of the non-legal, technical, and legal invention processing capacity of US UOTT and its implications. A survey questionnaire was sent to 99 randomly selected US research universities. Seventy-five percent of the respondents mentioned shortage of staff for non-legal and legal processing of inventions. More than a third of the respondents claimed that, in 2006, they failed to process more than 26% of the inventions due to insufficient processing capacity in the UOTT. The study includes multiple regression models to estimate the effect of staffing on performance variables (i.e., Provisional Applications Filed, Patent [non-provisional] Applications and Licenses Executed) and “Inventions Not Processed” by the UOTTs due to staff/budget shortages. It is argued that, when short of staff and budget, UOTTs will be reduced to devoting their resources to ensuring patent applications are filed and patents are issued at the expense of marketing of inventions. Further, high-tech inventions are difficult to market because, often, there are no ready markets for them, especially if the inventor had no pre-invention contacts with a potential licensee. High-tech inventions originating from university labs may need market space/niche identification, new market creation, and the translation of the lab result into an “investor friendly” business plan; most UOTTs may be significantly short on these skills. Recommendations of this study are: first, an in-depth study of universities that are prolific in licensing inventions (40 or more licenses a year) is necessary to understand the reasons for their success in the context of UOTTs capacity to process inventions. Further, all federal agencies sponsoring university research must earmark a small percentage of each grant exclusively for commercialization purposes at the university. The paper offers multiple options for the effective use of these funds. The paper also offers several avenues for future research.

Keywords

Bottleneck in technology transfer University office of technology transfer (UOTT) University technology transfer Bayh-Dole Act Staffing of UOTT High-technology marketing Federal sponsored research policy 

JEL Classifications

O31 O32 O33 O34 O38 

References

  1. Anderson, R. A., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27, 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackstone, J. H. (2001). Theory of constraints: A status report. International Journal of Production Research, 39(6), 1053–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Block, F., & Keller, M. R. (2008). Where do innovations come from? Transformations in the US national innovation system, 1970–2006. Washington, D.C: The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, (ITIF). (July).Google Scholar
  4. Bostrom, D., & Tieckelmann, R. (2007). U.S. Licensing Activity Surveys FY 2006. North Brook, IL, USA: Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM). (Survey repeated every year).Google Scholar
  5. Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gregorio, D. D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthhold, J., Parshall, J., et al. (1997). Mapping the university technology transfer process. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 423–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kenny, M., & Patton, D. (2008). Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university technology licensing regime. Working paper, Center for Entrepreneurship, University of California, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Litan, R. E., Mitchell, L., & Reedy, E. J. (2007). The university as innovator: Bumps in the road. Issues in Science and Technology, 20, 57–66.Google Scholar
  11. Markam, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34(7), 1058–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meija, L. R. (1998). A brief look at a market-driven approach to university technology transfer: One model for a rapidly changing global economy. Technological forecasting and social change, 57, 233–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Martens, J., Rooijen, S. N. M. V., & McGrory, L. V. W. (2000). Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer. A Special Report of IPCC Working group III, Cambridge University Press, Published for Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change 2000.Google Scholar
  14. Morberg, D., & Moon, G. (2000). Technology commercialization—the choices facing researchers. IEEE Canadian Review, Summer 2000, pp. 5–8.Google Scholar
  15. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology before and after the Bayh- Dole Act in the United States. Stanford, California: Stanford Business Books, Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. National Association of Scholars. Debate: The commercialization of the academy. Science Insights, 6(8).Google Scholar
  17. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Powers, B. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rogers, E. M., Hall, B. J., Hashimoto, M., Steffensen, M., Speakman, K. L., & Timko, M. K. (1999). Technology transfer from university-based research centers: The University of New Mexico experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 687–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rogers, E. M., Takegami, S., & Yin, J. (2000). Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21, 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rohten, D., & Powell, W. W. (2007). “The frontiers of intellectual property: Expanded protection vs. new models of open science.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3, (December).Google Scholar
  22. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, E. L., & Link, A. N. (2003a). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Research, 14, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, E. L., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., & Link, A. N. (2003b). Assessing the organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stephan, P. E. (2001). Educational implications of university–industry technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Swamidass, P. M., Vulasa, V., & Wright, B. (2006). A novel approach for increasing commercialization capacity: The Auburn University Business + Engineering Graduate Student Model. Presented at the National Conference of the Technology Transfer Society, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 28–29 September.Google Scholar
  28. Swamidass, P. M., & Wright, B. (2006). A non-credit model for real-life technology transfer experience for cross-disciplinary student teams: Proceedings of the National Conference of ASEE (Ref. 2006–1798). Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  29. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tornatzky, L. G. (2000). “Building state economies by promoting university–industry technology transfer.” National Governor’s Association, Washington DC, p. 31.Google Scholar
  32. Trune, D. R., & Goslin, L. N. (1998). University technology transfer programs: A profit/loss analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 57, 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Thomas Walter Center for Technology ManagementAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations