Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Proof of Concept Centers in the United States: an exploratory look

The Journal of Technology Transfer volume 38, pages 349–381 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

In this paper we identify the population of 32 US university-related Proof of Concept Centers (PoCCs), and we present a model of technology development that identifies the economic role of PoCCs within that model. We examine the broad technology transfer challenges that PoCCs have been established to address. Further, we argue that PoCCs are a growing technology infrastructure in the United States, and they are important as a possible element of our national innovation system.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. This September 2009 document was updated and released again in February 2011.

  2. Partners in this cooperative effort included the Department of Energy along with the Economic Development Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

  3. The six organizations that received funding included the Iowa Innovation Network i6 Green Project in Ames; the Proof of Concept Center for Green Chemistry Scale-up in Holland, Michigan; the iGreen New England Partnership; the Igniting Innovation (I2) Cleantech Acceleration Network in Orlando, Florida; the Louisiana Tech Proof of Concept Center in Ruston; and the Washington State Clean Energy Partnership Project.

  4. EERE (2011) views PoCCs within a broader context than a university, and thus they define POCCs as institutions that “support all aspects of the entrepreneurship process, from assisting with technology feasibility and business plan development, to providing access to early-stage capital and mentors to offer critical guidance to innovators. Centers allow emerging technologies to mature and demonstrate their market potential, making them more attractive to investors and helping entrepreneurs turn their idea or technology into a business.” See: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=503.

  5. The inventor’s decision to disclose is influenced by the university’s reward systems and culture, as noted by the gray dashed arrows.

  6. See Hayter (2011) for a complete discussion of spinoff success factors discussed in the extant literature.

  7. See Rasmussen and Sørheim (2012) for a discussion of PoCCs from a public-sector perspective of bridging the funding gaps for university spinoffs.

  8. Some might take issue with the centers that we have subjectively classified as PoCCs. If this is the case, it underscores that an accepted definition of a PoCC is evolving.

  9. Year of establishment was determined from the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) data. When more than one university is associated with a POCC, the year of establishment for the oldest TTO was considered.

  10. The t value for a test of differences in means assuming equal variance is −1.07 and the t value assuming unequal variances is −1.01. This same result follows from a probit model of the probability of a university being associated with a PoCC. Also held constant in the probit model was a binary variable for whether the university was public or private.

  11. The underlying information came from the AUTM data.

References

  • Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2000). Is university entrepreneurship different?. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University., mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation. American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Do University policies make a difference? Research Policy, 34(3), 343–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald, P., & Branscomb, L. M. (2003). Valleys of death and Darwinian seas: Financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(3–4), 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, E. (2001). Effects of patenting and licensing on research. Presentation to the National Academies Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economy, 17 April.

  • Bekkers, R., Gilsing, V., & van der Steen, M. (2006). Determining factors of the effectiveness of IP-based spin-offs: Comparing the Netherlands and the US. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 545–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, D. M., & Hitchens, D. M. W. N. (1998). Campus companies—U.K. and Ireland. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship (forthcoming).

  • Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D. S., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The case of academic spin-off companies in Italy. R & D Management, 30(4), 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1998). The entrepreneurial university: Demand and response. Tertiary Education and Management, 4(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Bruneel, J., & Wright, M. (2007). Growth strategies of young, technology-based firms. Paper presented at the Babson Conference on Entrepreneurship Research 2007.

  • Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 55–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conceicao, P., Heitor, M. V., & Oliveira, P. (1998). University-based technology licensing in the knowledge based economy. Technovation, 18(10), 615–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. C. (1973). Technical entrepreneurship: What do we know? R&D Management, 3(2), 59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. C. (1984). Contrasts in the role of incubator organizations in the founding of growth-oriented firms, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degroof, J. J., & Roberts, E. B. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructure for academic spin-off ventures. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 327–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, J. S. (2000). Building a social capital model of research development: The case of EPSCOR. Science and Public Policy, 27(2), 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doutriaux, J. (1987). Growth patterns of academic entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(4), 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 269–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EERE. (2011). Obama administration announces launch of i6 green challenge to promote clean energy innovation and economic growth. EERE News, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=503.

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Executive Office of the President. (2009). A strategy for American innovation: Driving towards sustainable growth and quality jobs. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P., & Desrochers, P. (2004). Truth for its own sake: Academic culture and technology transfer at Johns Hopkins University. Minerva, 42(2), 105–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. J., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • G, C., & Fier, H. (2010). Informal university technology transfer: A comparison between the United States and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 637–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldhor, R. S., & Lund, R. T. (1983). University-to-industry advanced technology transfer. Research Policy, 12(3), 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golub, E. (2003). Generating spin-offs from university-based research: The potential of technology transfer, PhD dissertation. Manhattan: Columbia University.

  • Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2003). Exploring the networking characteristics of new venture founding teams. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics’ organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 821–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbranson, C. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Proof of Concept Centers: Accelerating the commercialization of university innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 340–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heirman, A., & Clarysse, B. (2004). How and why do research-based startups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, T., & Puri, M. (2002). Venture capital and the professionalism of start-up firms: Empirical evidence. The Journal of Finance, 57(1), 169–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, D. H., & Bernstein, T. (1997). Managing the university technology licensing process. Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 9, 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32(9), 1555–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 957–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: ‘the best we can do with the ST we get to work with? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1271–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, M., Jacob, M., & Hellstrom, T. (2005). The strength of strong ties: University spin-offs and the significance of historical relations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(3), 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M., & Goe, W. R. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S., & Sleeper, S. (2005). Entry by spin offs. Management Science, 51(8), 1291–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2002). Does social capital determine innovation? To what extent? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(7), 681–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. S. (1996). Technology transfer and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25(6), 843–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (2005). The university and the start-up: Lessons from the past two decades. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2), 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebeskind, J. P., Oliver, A. L., Zucker, L., & Brewer, M. (1996). Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7(4), 428–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litan, R., Mitchell, L., & Reedy, E. J. (2007). The university as innovator: Bumps in the road. Issues in Science and Technology, 23(4), 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Blumenthal, D., & Campbell, E. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. A. (2002). Invention, innovation and entrepreneurship: The commercialization of university research by inventor-founded firms, PhD dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.

  • Maia, C., & Claro, J. (2012). The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: An exploratory study. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9246-y.

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matkin, G. W. (1990). Technology transfer and the university. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Are co-active researchers on top of their class? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-ccience and technology, SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series 144. University of Sussex, SPRU—Science and Technology Policy Research.

  • Mitchell, W. (1991). Using academic technology: Transfer methods and licensing incidence in the commercialization of American diagnostic imaging equipment research, 1954–1988. Research Policy, 20(3), 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2005). Institutional change and resource endowments to science-based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy, 34(7), 1010–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, F. E. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33(4), 643–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 12-01).

  • Nerkar, A., & Shane, Scott. (2003). When do start-ups that exploit patented academic knowledge survive? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1391–1410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003). Academic networks in a trichotomous categorisation of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 333–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialize new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2004). Universities and technology transfer: A review of academic entrepreneurship literature. Irish Journal of Management, 25(2), 11–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez, M. P., & Sanchez, A. M. (2003). The development of university spin-offs: Early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation, 23(10), 823–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piore, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organization, 12, 295–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radosevich, R. (1995). A model for entrepreneurial spin-offs from public technology sources. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(7–8), 879–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappert, B., Webster, A., & Charles, D. (1999). Making sense of diversity and reluctance: Academic-industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy, 28(8), 873–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., & Sørheim, R. (2012). How governments seek to bridge the financing gap for university spin-offs: Proof-of-concept, pre-seed, and seed funding. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24(7), 663–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. (1991). The technological base of the new enterprise. Research Policy, 20(4), 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. (2009). Entrepreneurial impact: The role of MIT. Kansas City: The Kauffman Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B., & Malone, D. E. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R & D Management, 26(1), 17–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B., & Peters, D. H. (1981). Commercial innovation from university faculty. Research Policy, 10(2), 108–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M., Takegami, S., & Yin, J. (2001). Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21(4), 253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samson, K. J., & Gurdon, M. A. (1993). University scientists as entrepreneurs: A special case of technology transfer and high-tech venturing. Technovation, 13(2), 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Stuart, T. E. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S. (2011). Academic entrepreneurship: Lessons learned for university administrators and policymakers. Presented at the Strategic Management of Places Conference, December 13, 2011.

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management’, 21(1–2), 115–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffensen, M., Rogers, E. M., & Speakman, K. (2000). Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(1), 93–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). University licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act. Science, 301(22), 1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tornatzky, L. G., Waugaman, P. G., Lucinda Casson, S., Crowell, C. S., & Wong, F. (1995). Benchmarking best practices for university-industry technology transfer: Working with start-up companies, A Report of the Southern Technology Council. Atlanta: Southern Technology Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1994). An assessment of firms located on and off science parks in the United Kingdom. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1997) .Training provision and development of small and medium-sized enterprises. Research Report No. 26, London: DfEE.

  • Wright, M., Mosey, S., & Noke, H. (2011). Academic entrepreneurship and economic competitiveness: Rethinking the role of the entrepreneur. Keynote Paper: International Conference on Academic Entrepreneurship: Basque Institute of Competitiveness (San Sebastian, Spain), September 8–9, 2011.

  • Wright, M., Vohora, A., & Lockett, A. (2004). The formation of high-tech university spinouts: The role of joint ventures and venture capital investors. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 287–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Van de Velde, E., & Larraneta, B. (2007). Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin-offs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 569–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (2001). Capturing technological opportunity via Japan’s star scientists: Evidence from Japanese firms’ biotech patents and products. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA

    Samantha R. Bradley & Albert N. Link

  2. Policy Evaluation and Transformation, New York Academy of Sciences, New York, NY, USA

    Christopher S. Hayter

Authors
  1. Samantha R. Bradley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher S. Hayter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Albert N. Link
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Albert N. Link.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Summary of the literature on challenges in technology transfer potentially addressed by Proof of Concept Centers
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bradley, S.R., Hayter, C.S. & Link, A.N. Proof of Concept Centers in the United States: an exploratory look. J Technol Transf 38, 349–381 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9309-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9309-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

search

Navigation