Advertisement

Cash, community and coordination: the triple-C categorisation of technology transfer office organisational philosophy

  • Jasmine MeysmanEmail author
  • Sven H. De Cleyn
  • Johan Braet
Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Although Technology Transfer as a research topic has become more and more popular, the mission and vision statements of technology transfer offices (TTOs) and the impact they have on the technology transfer processes leading to the creation of spin-offs, is still unfamiliar terrain. As mission and vision are incorporated into the operational philosophy of a TTO, this paper aims to find out what operational philosophies currently exist and if they can be aggregated into a typology. An empirical study was performed through a survey of 51 European TTOs, representing different academic disciplines and affiliations. The results shows that currently, three operational philosophy types exist within European TTOs: Cash, Community and Cooperation. Consequently, the degree to which the licensing negotiation strategies for the creation of spin-offs matched the typology that TTOs proclaimed to adhere to was studied. The results show that, besides mission and vision, also the risk averseness of TTOs plays a major role in the operational philosophy.

Keywords

Technology transfer Technology transfer office Triple C Operational philosophy Spin-offs Commercialisation Valorisation Mission Vision 

JEL classification

031 032 033 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. Dr. Johan Springael for the assistance in finding a fitting statistical test for rank attributed data. We also want to extend our gratitude to the TTO experts that participated in our study. However, because of operational secrecy, they will remain anonymous.

References

  1. Aczel, A., & Sounderpandian, J. (2007). Complete business statistics (5th editio). McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, D., & Preece, J. (2003). Electronic survey methodology : A case study in reaching hard-to-involve internet users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16(2), 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andriessen, D. G. (2005). Value , Valuation , and Valorisation. Rotterdam-Dordrecht. Retrieved from http://www.innovativedutch.com/downloads/ValueValuationandValorisation.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2018
  4. Audretsch, D., & Caiazza, R. (2016). Technology transfer and entrepreneurship : Cross-national analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1247–1259.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9441-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bart, C. K., & Baetz, M. C. (1998). The relationship between mission statements and firm performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Studies, 35(6), 823–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bart, C. K., & Taggar, S. (1998). A model of the impact of mission rationale, conten, process and alignment on firm performance (innovation research working group no. 73). Hamilton, Ontario.Google Scholar
  7. Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities , arts and social sciences valorisation. Higher Education, 59(5), 567–588.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bray, M. J., & Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: licensing fees vs. equity. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conti, A., & Gaule, P. (2011). Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European paradox. Research Policy, 40(1), 123–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dana, L.-P., & Dana, T. E. (2005). Expanding the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship research. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2(1), 79–88.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2005.006071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Cleyn, S. H., Tietz, R., Braet, J., & Schefczyck, M. (2010). Report on the status of academic entrepreneurship in Europe 1985–2008. Puurs: UniBook.Google Scholar
  12. De Smidt, S., & Prinzie, A. (2009). Does your mission statement have any value? An explorative analysis of the effectiveness of mission statements from a communication prespective (No. D/2009/7012/20). Ghent.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15(2), 195–219.  https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510590360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitzgerald, C., & Cunningham, J. A. (2016). Inside the university technology transfer office : Mission statement analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 1235–1246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9419-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New Brunswick: AldineTransaction.Google Scholar
  17. Good, M., Knockaert, M., & Soppe, B. (2017). Bridging the science-market gap : Towards a typology of technology transfer ecosystems in academia. In Technology Transfer Society Conference. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guena, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European University research funding : Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hladchenko, M. (2016). Knowledge valorisation a route of knowledge that ends in surplus (an example of the Netherlands). International Journal of Educational Management, 30(5), 668–678.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2014-0167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Wright, M., & Piva, E. (2014). Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: The case of a hybrid model. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 289–307.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9537-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jefferson, D. J., Maida, M., Farkas, A., Alandete-Saez, M., & Bennett, A. B. (2017). Technology transfer in the Americas: Common and divergent practices among major research universities and public sector institutions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1307–1333.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9516-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P., & Barrows Jr., E. A. (2008). Developing the strategy : Vision, value gaps|, and analysis. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Kemp, S., & Dwyer, L. (2003). Mission statements of international airlines: A content analysis. Tourism Management, 24(6), 635–653.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00049-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ledford, G. E., Jr., Wendenhof, J. R., & Strahley, J. T. (1995). Realizing a corporate philosophy. Organizational Dynamics, 23(3), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leonardo UK National Agency. (2004). Valorisation Guidance Note for Applicants and Projects ( Procedure B ). Birmingham: ECOTEC Research & Consulting Limited.Google Scholar
  27. Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Wild, A. (2015). The institutionalization of third stream activities in UK higher education: The role of discourse and metrics. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 78–92.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marcinkeviciene, V., Mikalauskiene, B., & Peleckiene, A. (2010). Concept of “ Organizational Philosophy ” Term in Modern Society. In International Scientific Conference UNITECH ‘10 (p. 553). Grabovo: Techničeski Universitet Grabovo.Google Scholar
  29. Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meysman, J., De Cleyn, S. H., & Braet, J. (2017). Identifying the key processes for technology transfer through spin-offs in academic institutions : A case study in Flanders and the Netherlands. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 15(3), 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, K., Mcadam, M., & Mcadam, R. (2014). The changing university business model : A stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44(3), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Munari, F., Pasquini, M., & Toschi, L. (2015). From the lab to the stock market ? The characteristics and impact of university- oriented seed funds in Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 948–975.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9385-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 181–202.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9121-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 23–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-9010-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pearce, J. A., & David, F. (1987). Corporate Mission statements : The bottom line. The Academy of Management Executive, 1(2), 109–115.Google Scholar
  36. Pinheiro, R., Langa, P. V., & Pausits, A. (2015). The institutionalization of universities’ third mission: Introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 227–232.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2015.1044551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28(8), 506–517.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rossi, F. (2017). The drivers of efficient knowledge transfer performance: Evidence from British universities. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 6(1), 21–37.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bex054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schaeffer, V., & Matt, M. (2016). Development of academic entrepreneurship in a non-mature context: The role of the university as a hub-organisation. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28(9–10), 724–745.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1247915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sheshkin, D. J. (1997). In T. Pletscher (Ed.), Handbook of parametrical and nonparametrical statistical procedures. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  42. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/grm036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. a., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003a). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111–133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(03)00007-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003b). 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
  45. Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2007). Intellectual property: The assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 529–540.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grm033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swales, J. M., & Rogers, P. S. (1995). Discourse and the projection of corporate culture: The Mission statement. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vehovar, V., & Lozar Manfreda, K. (2017). Overview: Online surveys. In N. G. Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (2nd edition) (pp. 146–161). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Vinig, T., & Lips, D. (2015). Measuring the performance of university technology transfer using meta data approach : The case of Dutch universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1034–1049.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9389-0.
  49. Vlaamse Regering. (2014). Regeerakkoord vlaamse regering 2014–2019.Google Scholar
  50. Wartnaby, D. (2014). Organisational philosophies: Mission , Vision and Values Statements Introductory Thoughts.Google Scholar
  51. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3th Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.ImecLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations