Despite the growing interest in university-to-industry technology transfer, there are very few studies on the governance of universities’ technology transfer offices (TTOs). The few existing ones tend to focus on US universities and generally tackle one dimension of the governance. The present paper aims at contributing to this literature in two ways. First, it takes into account the diversity of organizational models with a theoretical perspective: the paper presents a discussion on which combinations of four structural dimensions should yield viable configurations. Four main types of TTOs are identified: (1) classical TTO; (2) autonomous TTO; (3) discipline-integrated Technology Transfer Alliance; and (4) discipline-specialized Technology Transfer Alliance. Second, the paper relies on 16 case studies of universities located in six European countries in order to address the pros and cons of the four types of TTOs. The results provide both a conceptual understanding and an empirical overview of how universities organize their technology transfer and intellectual property management.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Evidence of the direct effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on the growth of university patenting and licensing is limited. Empirical research by Mowery et al. (2001) challenges the assumption that the Bayh-Dole Act is the main influencing factor; other factors such as an increase in biotechnology research also play important roles.
The “professor’s privilege” means that researchers rather than the universities own the IP of the inventions generated by their research activities. As of November 2011, the professor’s privilege is still in force in Sweden and Italy. Opposing the overall trend, Italy introduced this model in 2005. However, even with Bayh-Dole Act-like regulations, many academic inventions are filed by third parties, which makes it difficult to assess the ‘productivity’ of universities (c.f. Saragossi et al. 2003).
See Siegel et al. (2007) for a more detailed overview of key studies on TTO effectiveness.
One might suggest taking all dimension into account for a comprehensive analytic framework, however, this would make the analysis very complex. From a scientific point of view it is crucial to reduce complexity.
Standardization and formalization are not considered because the former describes to what extend activities are fixed. Since the technology transfer process is already well defined in most of its dimensions, this structural dimension does not help to differentiate between types of TTOs’ organizational structure. Formalization denotes to which extent organizational rules are written down and filed.
Since TTAs (case K and L) are serving more than one university, figures related to the number of students are not specified.
Available at: http://www.interface.ulg.ac.be/docs/Proton21052010.pdf.
Available at: http://www.astp.net/Survey/Summary_2007_ASTP_report.pdf.
In order to achieve comparability, the CEMI Survey was chosen; since the other two surveys also included in the target population other public research organizations. The survey was conducted in the summer of 2008, total 211 answers (59, 4% respond rate), and were obtained from TTOs located in Western Europe.
This number refers to the year 2007.
All TTOs in our sample are located in countries where institutional ownership system is in practice.
Available at: http://www.arwu.org/.
The degree of autonomy granted is operationalized along three criteria: (1) reporting directly to the Vice-Rector of research/innovation or similar authorities, (2) being independent from university administration regarding budget management, and (3) enjoying decision-making authority with respect to human resource management (e.g., specification of incentive schemes for TTO personnel and decisions regarding staff hiring).
For a more detailed discussion of the transfer process see, for example, Siegel et al. (2003).
An inventor’s share in our sample varies from 25 to 85 %. Lach and Schankerman (2008) find an average inventor share of 39 and 42 % for 34 private and 68 public universities, respectively. They find that the form of royalty system is not significantly related to observed university characteristics.
Belenzon, S., & Schankerman, M. (2009). University knowledge transfer: Private ownership, incentives, and local development objectives. Journal of Law and Economics, 52(1), 111–144. doi:10.1086/595763.
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. doi:10.1023/A:1007828026904.
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. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00034-2.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chandler, A. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chandler, A. (1990). Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
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. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.007.
Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 2–22. doi:10.1177/003803857200600101.
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 183–216. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.004.
Conti, A., & Gaulé, P. (2009). Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European paradox. Research Policy, 40(1), 123–135. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.007.
Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.12.003.
Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00097-5.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. doi:10.2307/258557.
European Commission (2009). Expert group on knowledge transfer. Final report—30 Nov 2009.
Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30. doi:10.1023/a:1021674618658.
Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114. doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2.
Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.005.
Hülsbeck, M., Lehmann, E., & Starnecker, A. (2011). Performance of Technology Transfer Offices in Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9243-6.
Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). 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. doi:10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00083-3.
Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403–433. doi:10.1111/j.0741-6261.2008.00020.x.
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), 169–181. doi:10.1080/1351847042000254211.
Mackenzie, K. D. (1978). Organizational structures. Arlington Heights, IL: AHM Publishing Corporation.
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. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.007.
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. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.003.
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. doi:10.1109/TEM.2007.912813.
Mathieu, A. (2011). University-industry interactions and knowledge transfer mechanisms: A critical survey. Working papers CEB. Brussels, Belgium: Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
Mathieu, A., Meyer, M., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2008). Turning science into business: A case study of a major European research university. Science and Public Policy, 35(9), 669–679.
Meyer, M., & Tang, P. (2007). Exploring the “value” of academic patents: IP management practices in UK universities and their implications for third-stream indicators. Scientometrics, 70(2), 415–440. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0210-9.
Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175–1195. doi:10.2307/256809.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the bayh-dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00100-6.
Muscio, A. (2010). What Drives the University Use of Technology Transfer Offices? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 181–202. doi:10.1007/s10961-009-9121-7.
O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1), 65–105. doi:10.2307/2391262.
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. doi:10.1023/a:1021678719567.
Sellenthin, M. O. (2009). Technology Transfer Offices and University Patenting in Sweden and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 603–620. doi:10.1007/s10961-009-9108-4.
Siegel, D. S., & Phan, P. H. (2005). Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education. In G. D. Libecap (Ed.), University entrepreneurship and technology transfer (Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation & economic growth, volume 16) (pp. 1–38). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
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, 111. doi:10.1016/S1047-8310(03)00007-5.
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. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2.
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. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grm036.
Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00160-8.
Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104. doi:10.1287/mnsc.184.108.40.20671.
Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characterisitcs and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 59–72. doi:10.1023/A:1007884111883.
Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40(4), 553–564. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.001.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York, NY: Free Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
The authors would like to thank the European Science Foundation (ESF-APE-INV) for support for this project. The authors are also grateful for comments received from the participants at the 2011 EPIP Conference in Brussels and the 2TS Conference in Augsburg. Moreover, we like to thank Florence Honoré and all interviewees for their support. Anja gratefully acknowledges the support of the TUM Graduate School at the Technische Universität München.
About this article
Cite this article
Schoen, A., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. & Henkel, J. Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. J Technol Transf 39, 435–453 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9289-0
- Technology transfer offices
- Organizational structure
- Academic patents