The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 788–808 | Cite as

University startups as a commercialization alternative: lessons from three contrasting case studies

Article

Abstract

A recent National Research Council (NRC) report (2011) recommends that universities must craft policies and allocate resources to enable more university startups because some university technologies will never be commercialized unless licensed to a startup. However, the creation of university startups requires personnel skills and programs not typically associated with an university Office of Technology Transfer (OTT). Estimates show that 75 % of university inventions are not licensed at all. The conclusions of this study include university policies to turn some them to fuel university startups. Carefully selected case studies of three contrasting universities reveal patterns of successful startup policies and performance. MIT’s case is an example of long-term success, the University of Colorado’s case is an example of medium-term success, and Auburn University’s case is an example of a new-comer to the scene. Lessons from the case studies include: the need for very early evaluation of all inventions for their startup potential, the need for pre-license seed funds through proof-of-concept programs to advance early-stage inventions to the next stage, and the need for OTT personnel skilled in enabling startups. NSF’s recent I-Corps program invests heavily in the training of potential enablers and entrepreneurs for commercializing university inventions. Based on the findings of this study, I-Corps must also invest in pre-license proof-of-concept programs to advance early-stage university inventions closer to the market. Implementing the conclusions of this study would also accomplish the recommendations of the 2011 NRC report cited above.

Keywords

University spinoffs and startups Proof of concept (POC) Technology development stages Management of innovation Technology transfer NSF I-Corps program Auburn University MIT The University of Colorado Stanford University 

JEL Classification

M13 

References

  1. BankBoston. (1997). MIT: The impact of innovation, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Bostrom, D., & Tieckelmann, R. (2007). U.S. Licensing Activity Surveys FY 2006. Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), North Brook, IL, USA (Annual surveys).Google Scholar
  3. Bray, M. J., & Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: licensing fees vs. equity position. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), 385–392. http://www.sciencedirect.com/.Google Scholar
  4. Chukumba, C., & Jensen, R. (2005).University invention, entrepreneurship, and start-ups. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge, MA, Working Paper 11475, June, http://www.nber.org/tmp/60448-w11475.pdf.
  5. DeSimone, J. M., & Mitchell, L. (2010). Facilitating the commercialization of university innovation: The Carolina express license agreement, Ewing Marion Kauffman foundation, April, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1585447.
  6. Di Gregoriao, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer: Strategies for American research universities. Management Science, 48, 105–122. http://www.web.ebscohost.com/.Google Scholar
  8. Gregario, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227. www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase. Accessed October 28, 2008.Google Scholar
  9. Gubeli, M. H., & Doloreux, D. (2005). An empirical study of university spin-off development. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3), 269–282. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1500925.Google Scholar
  10. Gulbranson, C.A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Proof of Concept Centers: Accelerating the Commercialization of University Innovation, a report of the Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  11. Hayter, C. S. (2010). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 340–352, on-line publication September 25. http://www.springerlink.com/content/w877x287w5855230/fulltext.pdf (2011).Google Scholar
  12. Hsu, D., & Bernstein, T. (1997). Managing the university technology licensing process: Findings from case studies. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 11(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
  13. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. The American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in Academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. http://www.sciencedirect.com/.Google Scholar
  16. Merrill, S. A., & Mazza, A. M. (Eds.). (2011). Managing university intellectual property in the public interest. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  17. MIT TLO. (2010). Technology licensing office statistics for years 2000 to 2010 [ppt]. Cambridge, MA. http://web.mit.edu/tlo/www/about/office_statistics.html. Accessed 5/10/2011.
  18. Nelsen, L. (2010). Formation of an entrepreneurial eco-system: The interaction of a research university and its city. International Journal of Healthcare Technology Management, 11(4), 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nelson, L. (2007). The activities and roles of MIT in forming clusters and strengthening entrepreneurship. In A. Krattiger, R. T. Mahoney & L. Nelsen, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. Oxford, U.K.: MIHR, and Davis, USA: PIPRA, www.ipHandbook.org.
  20. Nelson, A. J., & Byers, T. (2010). Challenges in university technology transfer and the promising role of entrepreneurship education. Kauffman: Emerging Scholars Initiatives. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1651224 (July 1).
  21. O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Powers, J. (2000). Academic entrepreneurship in higher education: Institutional effects on performance of university technology transfer. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Microform.Google Scholar
  23. Powers, J., & McDougall, P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roberts, E. D., & Eesley, C. (2009). Entrepreneurial impact: The role of MIT. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2007). Intellectual property: The assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 529–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business, Thomas Walter Center for Technology ManagementAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA

Personalised recommendations