The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 199–215 | Cite as

Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany

  • Marcel Hülsbeck
  • Erik E. Lehmann
  • Alexander Starnecker


The aim of this study is to empirically analyze the performance of technology transfer offices (TTO) in Germany. Although being one of the largest and innovative economies in the world, there is only scarce evidence about the role and performance of TTO in university–industry technology transfer. While policy makers and university managers are often quite optimistic about the impact of TTO in fostering technology transfer into the region, consulting firms and research institutes report such institutions in Germany as superfluous and counterproductive. Using the number of invention disclosures as a performance measure, we analyze how variance in performance can be explained by different organizational structures and variables of TTO. Controlling for regional endowment and university specific effects, our results reveal that TTO performance is mainly a function of the kind of labor division within the TTO and the research intensity of the university. Knowing the drivers of TTO performance may help policy makers and university managers to reflect their strategies, mitigate weak points and thus foster performance.

JEL Classification

D23 L38 O32 


Technology transfer offices Division of labor University/industry technology transfer Organization Germany 



The authors wish to acknowledge financial support from the Global Business Management Center (GBM) University Augsburg. They also acknowledge the helpful comments from seminar participations at the UfO-Workshop on Business & Economics, Tuscany/Italy (2010), the workshop on Technology Transfer and Regional Competitiveness, Bergamo/Italy (2011), the annual conference of the T2S, George Washington University/USA (2010) and helpful suggestions from Alfredo Di Massis, Tommaso Minola, Michele Meoli, Silvio Vismara and two anonymous referees.


  1. Agrawal, A. K. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ArbNERrfG (2002). Gesetz zur Änderung des Arbeitnehmererfindungsgesetzes Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I (Nr. 4), 414.Google Scholar
  3. Audretsch, D. B., Hülsbeck, M. & Lehmann E. E. (2011). Regional competitiveness, university spillovers and entrepreneurial activity. Small Business Economics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship and regional growth—an evolutionary perspective. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5), 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., & Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005a). Do university policies make a difference? Research Policy, 34(3), 343–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005b). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillover and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86(3), 641–652.Google Scholar
  10. Becker, S. O., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The Stata Journal, 2(4), 358–377.Google Scholar
  11. 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. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Anderson, M., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(15), 1224–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruneel, J., D’Èste, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A.-C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1–2), 199–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cassima, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementary in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cepeda, M. S., Boston, R., Farrar, J. T., & Strom, B. L. (2003). Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. American Journal of Epidemiology, 158(3), 280–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. CHE Report (2009). Das CHE-Forschungsranking deutscher Universitäten 2009. Gemeinnütziges Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung (CHE).
  19. Colombo, D., D’Adda, D., & Piva, E. (2010). The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cosh, A., & Hughes, A. (2010). Never mind the quality feel the width: University–industry links and government financial support for innovation in small high-technology businesses in the UK and the USA. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 66–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coupe, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Darby, M. R., Zucker, L. G., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Decter, M., Bennett, D., & Leseure, M. (2007). University to business technology transfer—UK and USA comparisons. Technovation, 27(3), 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eckey, H.-F., Kosfeld, R., & Türck, M. (2006). Abgrenzung deutscher Arbeitsmarktregionen. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 64(2006), 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fritsch, M., & Lukas, R. (2001). Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy, 30(2), 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production: Funding and the structure of university research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  29. Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gonzàles-Pernia, J.L., Kuechle, G., & Peñaki-Legazkue I. (2011). An assessment of the determinants of university technology transfer. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  31. Greif, S., & Schmiedl, D. (2006). Patentatlas Deutschland. München: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt.Google Scholar
  32. Grimm, H. M. & Jaenicke J. (2010). What drives patenting and commerzialisation activity at Eastern German universities? The role of new public policy, institutional environment and individual prior knowledge. Journal of Technology Transfer, Online First, 1–24.Google Scholar
  33. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29(4/5), 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the advanced technology program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoppe, H. C. & Ozdenoren E. (2001). Intermediation in innovation: The role of technology transfer offices. Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  36. Hülsbeck, M. & Lehmann E. E. (2010). The role of regional knowledge production in university technology transfer: Isolating coevolutionary effects, working paper University of Augsburg.
  37. Hülsbeck, M. & Lehmann E. E. (2012). Academic entrepreneurship and board formation in science-based firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  38. Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kienbaum Management Consultants GmbH (2006) Weiterentwicklung von Kriterien sowie Datenerhebung auf der Basis der Kriterien und Datenauswertung bezüglich der Kompetenz und Leistungsfähigkeit der Patent- und Verwertungsagenturen. Abschlußbericht im Auftrag des BMB. Google Scholar
  40. Krücken, G., Meier, F., & Müller, A. (2007). Information, cooperation, and the blurring of boundaries–technology transfer in Germany and American discourses. Higher Education, 53(6), 675–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lehmann E. E. & Warning S. (2010). The impact of regional endowments and university characteristics on university efficiency, working paper, University of Augsburg.Google Scholar
  42. Liebeskind, J. P., Oliver, A., Zucker, L., & Brewer, M. (1996). Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7(4), 428–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Link, A., Rothaermel, F., & Siegel, D. (2008). University technology transfer: An introduction to the special issue. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Link, A., & Siegel, D. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university–industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11(3), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2008). Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2009). Supply-side innovation and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 625–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  48. Meoli, M., Paleari, S. & Vismara S. (2011). Completing the technology transfer process: The IPOs and M&As of biotech spin-offs, Small Business Economics, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  49. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2), 115–127.Google Scholar
  50. Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of U.S. university patents after the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981–1992. Management Science, 48(1), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Owen-Smith, J. & Powell W. W. (2001).To patent or not: Faculty decision and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 99–114.Google Scholar
  53. Owen-Smith, J. & Powell W. W. (2003).The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32(9), 1695–1711.Google Scholar
  54. Phan, P. H. & Siegel D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned from quantitative and qualitative research in the U.S. and the U.K. Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics 0609, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  55. Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12(1990), 295–336.Google Scholar
  56. Powers, J. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), 516–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung S. D., & Jiang L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, Advance Access published July 18, 2007, 1–101.Google Scholar
  61. Saragossi, S., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2003). What patent data reveal about universities: The case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schartinger, D., Schibany, A., & Gassler, H. (2001). Interactive relations between universities and firms: Empirical evidence from Austria. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sellenthin, M. (2009). Technology transfer offices and university patenting in Sweden and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 603–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Swamidass, P. M., & Vulasa, V. (2009). Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 343–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Ledebur, S. (2008). Technology transfer offices and university patenting—a review. Jena Economic Papers, 2008-033.Google Scholar
  67. Warning, S. (2007). The economic analysis of universities: Strategic groups and positioning. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcel Hülsbeck
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Erik E. Lehmann
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Alexander Starnecker
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  2. 2.GBMAugsburgGermany
  3. 3.CCSEAugsburgGermany
  4. 4.CCSEBergamoItaly

Personalised recommendations