The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 181–202 | Cite as

What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy

Article

Abstract

Over the last 20 years, universities have made steady progress in their efforts to foster the process of technology transfer through collaboration with industry. The establishment of technology transfer offices (TTO) has become routine for supporting the commercialization of academic research. However, the literature shows that there are many factors that affect the efficiency and effectiveness of these offices. Based on original data from interviews with 197 university departments in Italy, this paper investigates the determinants of universities university use of TTOs. We take account of the effects of universities’ and TTOs characteristics, of research and geographic indicators.

Keywords

University Collaboration Technology transfer Technology transfer office 

JEL Classification

L24 L31 O32 O33 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work benefited from valuable comments from Francesco Crespi, Jean-Michel Dalle, Francesco Ferrante, Aldo Geuna, Georg Licht, Francesco Lissoni, Mauro Mallone, Laura Ramaciotti and two anonymous referees. The author would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Italian Ministry of University and Research (FIRB Project 2003—Prot. RBNE033K2R: “A multidimensional approach to technology transfer for more efficient organizational models”). Finally the author is grateful to the late Professor Fabio Gobbo for his guidance and encouragement throughout this work.

References

  1. Arnold, E., Brown, N., Eriksson, A., Jansson, T., Muscio, A., Nählinder, J., & Zaman, R. (2006). The Role of industrial research institutes in the national innovation system: A report to VINNOVA, Technopolis, October.Google Scholar
  2. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. (2002). Markets for technology—The economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozeman, B., Papadakis, M., & Coker, K. (1995). Industry perspectives on commercial interactions with federal laboratories: Does the cooperative technology paradigm really work? Report to the National Science Foundation. Research on Science and Technology Program.Google Scholar
  5. Branscomb, L. M., Kodama, F., & Richard, F. (1999). Industrializing knowledge: University–industry linkages in Japan and the United States. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Branstetter, L., & Ogura, Y. (2005). Is academic science driving a surge in industrial innovation? Evidence from patent citation. National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper 11561, August.Google Scholar
  7. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2007). The scientific productivity of academic inventors: New evidence from Italian data. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., & Walsh, J. (1998). Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In R. G. Noll (Ed.), Challenges to research universities (pp. 171–200). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. (ch. 7).Google Scholar
  10. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coupé, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Este, P., Nesta, L., & Patel, P. (2005). Analysis of university–industry research collaborations in the UK: Preliminary results of a survey of university researchers. SPRU Report for a project funded by EPSRC/ESRC.Google Scholar
  13. D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 1295–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher, D., & Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2002). Brokers on the boundary: Academy-industry liaison in Canadian universities. Higher Education, 44, 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2008). The governance of university knowledge transfer. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, September, SEWP173.Google Scholar
  18. Grant, E. B., & Gregory, M. J. (1997). Tacit knowledge, the life cycle and international manufacturing transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 9(2), 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guldbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hackett, S., & Dills, D. (2004). A systematic review of business incubation research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hatakenaka, S. (2006). Development of third stream activity: Lessons from international experience. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  22. Hollanders, H., & Celikel Esser F. (2007). Measuring innovation efficiency. INNO-Metrics Thematic, December.Google Scholar
  23. IPI—Istituto per la Promozione Industriale. (2005). Indagine sui centri per l’innovazione e il trasferimento tecnologico in Italia, a cura del Dipartimento Centri e Reti Italia, Direzione Trasferimento di Conoscenza e Innovazione, Novembre, Roma.Google Scholar
  24. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The tale of university licensing. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). The disclosure and licensing of university inventions: The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1271–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lambert, R. (2003). Lambert review of business–university collaboration: Final report. HM Treasury, December.Google Scholar
  27. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 561–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Link, N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 620–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Litan, R. E., Mitchell, L., & Reedy, E. J. (2007). Commercializing university innovations: Alternative approaches. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=976005
  30. Lowe, R. A. (2006). Who develops a university invention? The impact of tacit knowledge and licensing policies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovation: Sources characteristics and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy, 26, 773–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005a). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34, 1058–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005b). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marsili, O., & Verspagen, B. (2002). Technology and the dynamics of industrial structure: An empirical mapping of Dutch manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 791–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MIUR—Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca. (2007). CIVR, Comitato per la Valutazione della Ricerca, VTR 2001–2003, Relazione Finale, Roma.Google Scholar
  37. Muscio, A. (2008). Il trasferimento tecnologico in Italia: risultati di un’indagine sui dipartimenti universitari. L’Industria Numero Speciale, pp. 245–268.Google Scholar
  38. Nooteboom, B., van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36, 1016–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. OECD. (2002). Frascati manual: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  41. OECD. (2003). Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organisations. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Piccaluga, A., & Balderi, C. (2006). La valorizzazione della ricerca nelle università italiane, Quarto rapporto annuale (dati relativi al periodo 2002–2005). Netval.Google Scholar
  45. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., Atwater, 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(1–2), 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sloman, R. G. (2007). Technology transfer data management. In intellectual property management. In A. Krattiger, R. T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, et al. (Eds.) Health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford, UK: MIHR, and Davis, California, USA: PIPRA. Available at http://www.ipHandbook.org

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento Di Scienze Economiche, Matematiche E StatisticheUniversità degli Studi di FoggiaFoggiaItaly

Personalised recommendations