Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 434–461 | Cite as

Stimulating academic patenting in a university ecosystem: an agent-based simulation approach

  • Sabrina BacksEmail author
  • Markus Günther
  • Christian Stummer
Article

Abstract

Technology transfer to society is—in addition to research and teaching—widely acknowledged as a third mission of modern universities. Academic entrepreneurship and academic patenting are two closely related means to do so and, more often than not, patenting activity and entrepreneurship are part of a linear sequence in the commercialization process. This paper is mainly concerned with the first step. To further academic patenting, university administrations have installed or expanded existing technology transfer offices (TTOs) as active stakeholders in the university ecosystem. These offices must find the right measures (e.g., monetary or non-monetary incentives or providing information at internal events) and offer them to the right group of scientists (e.g., departments) at the right point in time. This is challenging because scientists’ decision whether to publish or patent depends on several factors, including individual preferences, perceived normative social pressure from peers, level of information received through word-of-mouth communication or informational events, and previous first-hand experience. An agent-based simulation approach may serve as a decision aid for this purpose. Such an approach models stakeholders as ‘agents’ who interact with each other, and through these interactions, the system’s behavior evolves and can be observed. In this paper, we introduce an agent-based simulation for evaluating measures that can be employed by a TTO in order to stimulate academic patenting and, subsequently, the foundation of spin-off companies relying on such patents. The applicability of the approach is illustrated through an example.

Keywords

University ecosystem Technology transfer TTO measures Decision aid Complex social system Agent-based simulation 

JEL Classification

C53 I23 O31 O34 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Francesco Lissoni and Michele Pezzoni for applying their name-matching algorithms to our professors’ list as well as Lars Lüpke for retrieving the professors’ names from the websites of (some) Austrian universities.

References

  1. Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 382–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, T. J. (1970). Communication networks in R&D laboratories. R&D Management, 1(1), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archibugi, D., & Filippetti, A. (2017). The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arndt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4(3), 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University–industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37(10), 1865–1883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Autio, E., & Acs, Z. (2010). Intellectual property protection and the formation of entrepreneurial growth aspirations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(3), 234–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. AUTM. (2017). FY2015: U.S. licensing activity survey. http://www.autm.net/fy2015-survey. Accessed 13 June 2017.
  9. Axelrod, R. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ: University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2007). What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for the delocalisation of university–industry interaction. Technovation, 27(11), 704–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Azagra-Caro, J. (2014). Determinants of national patent ownership by public research organisations and universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(6), 898–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2009). The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public) research output. Journal of Industrial Economics, 62(4), 637–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Backs, S. (2012). The role and impact of technology transfer offices on academic patenting: Theory and practice in selected Austrian universities. Working Paper, Chair of Innovation and Technology Management, Bielefeld University. (German).Google Scholar
  14. Backs, S., & Stummer, C. (2015). Academic patents and their effects on research, teaching, and administration in universities. Management Review Quarterly, 65(1), 35–68. (German).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33(1), 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Baldini, N. (2010). Do royalties really foster university patenting activity? An answer from Italy. Technovation, 30(2), 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Barabási, A., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 288(5), 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Barabási, A., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311(1), 590–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Barbieri, E., Rubini, L., Pollio, C., & Micozzi, A. (2018). What are the trade-offs of academic entrepreneurship? An investigation on the Italian case. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(1), 198–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29(2), 142–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bock, C., Huber, A., & Jarchow, S. (2018). Growth factors of research-based spin-offs and the role of venture capital investing. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(5), 1375–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 661–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Borshchev, A., & Filippov, A. (2004). From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent based modeling: Reasons, techniques, tools. In 22nd International conference of the system dynamics society. Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  27. Bradler, C., Dur, R., Neckermann, S., & Non, A. (2016). Employee recognition and performance: A field experiment. Management Science, 62(11), 3085–3099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bray, M. J., & Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Buttle, F. A. (1998). Word of mouth: Understanding and managing referral marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6(3), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Carayannis, E. G., Provance, M., & Grigoroudis, E. (2016). Entrepreneurship ecosystems: An agent-based simulation approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 631–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Carayol, N. (2007). Academic incentives, research organization and patenting at a large French university. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Colaianni, C. A., & Cook-Deegan, R. M. (2009). Columbia University’s Axel patents: Technology transfer and implications for the Bayh–Dole act. Milibank Quarterly, 87(3), 683–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Corbett, A. C., Siegel, D. S., & Katz, J. A. (2014). Academic entrepreneurship: Creating an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Howard House: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Cunningham, J. A., & O’Reilly, P. (2018). Macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 545–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., & Schneider, C. (2011). Commercializing academic research: The quality of faculty patenting. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5), 1403–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. D’Este, P., Mahdi, S., Neely, A., & Rentocchini, F. (2012). Inventors and entrepreneurs in academia: What types of skills and experience matter? Technovation, 32(5), 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Dahlborg, C., Lewensohn, D., Danell, R., & Sundberg, C. J. (2017). To invent and let others innovate: A framework of academic patent transfer modes. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(3), 538–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Del Barrio-Castro, T., & García-Quevedo, J. (2009). The determinants of university patenting: Do incentives matter? Working Paper, Barcelona Institute of Economics.Google Scholar
  43. Delre, S. A., Jager, W., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Janssen, M. A. (2007). Targeting and timing promotional activities: An agent-based model for the takeoff of new products. Journal of Business Research, 60(8), 826–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Delre, S. A., Jager, W., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Janssen, M. A. (2010). Will it spread or not? The effects of social influences and network topology on innovation diffusion. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(2), 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Dornbusch, F., Schmoch, U., Schulze, N., & Bethke, N. (2013). Identification of university-based patents: A new large-scale approach. Research Evaluation, 22(1), 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Farre-Mensa, J., Hegde, D., & Ljungqvist, A. (2016). Do patents facilitate entrepreneurs’ access to venture capital? Working Paper, Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  47. Filippetti, A., & Savona, M. (2003). University–industry linkages and academic engagements: Individual behaviours and firm’s barriers. Introduction to the special section. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 719–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Franzoni, C., & Lissoni, F. (2006). Academic entrepreneurship, patents, and spin-offs: Critical issues and lessons for Europe. Working Paper No. 180, CESPRI at Bocconi University.Google Scholar
  49. Frey, B., & Neckermann, S. (2008). Academics appreciate awards: A new aspect of incentives in research. CESIfo Working Paper Series No. 2531, CESIfo, Munich.Google Scholar
  50. Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1–2), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Garcia, R., & Jager, W. (2011). From the special issue editors: Agent-based modelling of innovation diffusion. Journal of Product Management, 28(2), 148–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Geoghegan, W., O’Kane, C., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). Technology transfer offices as a nexus within the triple helix: The progression of the university’s role. International Journal of Technology Management, 68(3–4), 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Giuri, P., Munari, F., & Pasquini, M. (2013). What determines university patent commercialization? Empirical evidence on the role of IPR ownership. Industry and Innovation, 20(5), 488–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Goel, R. K., & Göktepe-Hultén, D. (2018). What drives academic patentees to bypass TTOs? Evidence from a large public research organization. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(1), 240–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Göktepe-Hultén, D., & Mahagaonkar, P. (2010). Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: In the expectation of money or reputation? Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(4), 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40(1), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  60. Hall, B. H., & Harhoff, D. (2012). Recent research on the economics of patents. Annual Review of Economics, 4, 541–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Harrison, J. R., Zhiang, L., Carroll, G. R., & Carley, K. M. (2007). Simulation modelling in organizational and management research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1229–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hayter, C. S., Lubynsky, R., & Maroulis, S. (2017). Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1237–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hayter, C. S., Nelson, A. J., Zayed, S., & O’Connor, A. C. (2018). Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis and extension of the literature. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(4), 1039–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hermanowicz, J. (1998). The presentation of occupational self in science. Qualitative Sociology, 21(2), 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ho, T. H., Lim, N., & Camerer, C. F. (2006). How “psychological” should economic and marketing models be? Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 341–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hoegl, M., & Proserpio, L. (2004). Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects. Research Policy, 33(8), 1153–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Iorio, R., Labory, S., & Rentocchini, F. (2017). The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian academic scientists. Research Policy, 46(2), 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kenney, M., & Goe, R. W. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33(5), 691–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Korff, N., van der Sijde, P., Groenewegen, P., & Davey, T. (2014). Supporting university–industry linkages: A case study of the relationship between the organizational and individual levels. Industry and Higher Education, 28(4), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company? An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38(6), 947–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. Rand Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35(10), 1599–1615.Google Scholar
  75. Landry, R., Saihi, M., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2010). Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy, 39(10), 1387–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Latané, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(8), 795–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33(8), 1201–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Law, A. M., & Kelton, W. D. (1991). Simulation modeling and analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  79. Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2018). Public cluster policy and performance. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 558–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Lei, Z., Juneja, R., & Wright, B. D. (2009). Patents versus patenting: Implications of intellectual property protection for biological research. Nature Biotechnology, 27(1), 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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
  82. Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Lowe, R., & Ziedonis, A. (2006). Overoptimism and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Management Science, 52(2), 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Lüthje, C., & Franke, N. (2003). The ‘making’ of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&D Management, 33(2), 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Macy, M. W., & Willer, R. (2002). From factors to actors: Computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Bass, F. M. (1990). New product diffusion models in marketing: A review and directions for further research. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Manna, S., & Sen, P. (2002). Modulated scale-free network in Euclidean space. Physical Review E, 66(6), 066114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005a). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34(7), 1058–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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
  91. Mazzoleni, R. (2006). The effects of university patenting and licensing on downstream R&D investment and social welfare. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. McKelvey, B. (2004). Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Merton, R. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Meyer, M. (2006). Academic inventiveness and entrepreneurship: On the importance of start-up companies in commercializing academic patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 501–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Miller, D. J., & Acs, Z. J. (2017). The campus as entrepreneurial ecosystem: The University of Chicago. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Miranda, F. J., Chamorro, A., & Rubio, S. (2018). Re-thinking university spin-off: A critical literature review and a research agenda. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(4), 1007–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Munshaw, S., Lee, S.-H., Phan, P. H., & Marr, K. A. (2018). The influence of human capital and perceived university support on patent applications of biomedical investigators. Journal of Technology Transfer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9649-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Murray, F. (2006). The OncoMouse that roared: Resistance & accommodation to patenting in academic science. Working Paper, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  99. Neck, H. M., Meyer, G. D., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. C. (2004). An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), 190–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Nelson, R. R. (2016). The sciences are different and the differences matter. Research Policy, 45(9), 1692–1701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Ngwenyama, O., Guergachi, A., & McLaren, T. (2007). Using the learning curve to maximize IT productivity: A decision analysis model for timing software upgrades. International Journal of Production Economics, 105(2), 524–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 617–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Niosi, J. (2006). Success factors in Canadian academic spin-offs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Nylund, P. A., & Cohen, B. (2017). Collision density: Driving growth in urban entrepreneurial ecosystems. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(3), 757–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. O’Kane, C., Zhang, J. A., Cunningham, J. A., & O’Reilly, P. (2017). What factors inhibit publicly funded principal investigators’ commercialization activities? Small Enterprise Research, 24(3), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. O’Shea, R. P., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 653–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science research one universities. Research Policy, 32(6), 1081–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialization: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Pezzoni, M., Lissoni, F., & Tarasconi, G. (2014). How to kill inventors: Testing the Massacrator algorithm for inventor disambiguation. Scientometrics, 101(1), 477–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Polt, W., Gassler, H., & Schibany, A. (2001). Benchmarking industry–science relations: The role of framework conditions. Science and Public Policy, 28(4), 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Rand, W., & Rust, R. T. (2011). Agent-based modeling in marketing: Guidelines for rigor. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(3), 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influence of university departments on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy, 43(1), 92–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Reingen, P. H., & Kernan, J. B. (1986). Analysis of referral networks in marketing: Methods and illustration. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(4), 370–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 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
  118. Secundo, G., De Beer, C., Schutte, C. S., & Passiante, G. (2017). Mobilising intellectual capital to improve European universities’ competitiveness: The technology transfer offices’ role. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(3), 607–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Shane, S. (2001a). Technology regimes and new firm formation. Management Science, 47(9), 1173–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Shane, S. (2001b). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2), 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Sine, W. D., Shane, S., & Di Gregorio, D. (2003). The halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Management Science, 49(4), 478–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Stummer, C., Günther, M., & Backs, S. (2013). A survey on academic patents at Austrian universities: Methodology and initial results. Working Paper, Chair of Innovation and Technology Management, Bielefeld University.Google Scholar
  127. Stummer, C., Kiesling, E., Günther, M., & Vetschera, R. (2015). Innovation diffusion of repeat purchase products in a competitive market: An agent-based simulation approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 245(1), 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Thiriot, S., & Kant, J.-D. (2008). Using associative networks to represent adopters’ beliefs in a multiagent model of innovation diffusion. Advances in Complex Systems, 11(2), 261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Thursby, J., Fuller, A. W., & Thursby, M. (2009). US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy, 38(1), 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Todorovic, Z. W., McNaughton, R. B., & Guild, P. (2011). ENTRE-U: An entrepreneurial orientation scale for universities. Technovation, 31(2–3), 128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Valdivia, W. D. (2013). University start-ups: Critical for improving technology transfer. Research Paper, Center for Technology Innovation, The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  132. Verspagen, B. (2006). University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Survey, 20(4), 607–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Wadsack-Köchl and Kasparovsky. (2016). Higher education in Austria. Vienna: Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy.Google Scholar
  134. Walter, T., Ihl, C., Mauer, R., & Brettel, M. (2018). Grace, gold, or glory? Exploring incentives for invention disclosure in the university context. Journal of Technology Transfer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9303-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. London: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business Administration and EconomicsBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations