Skip to main content

Time of adoption and intensity of technology transfer: an institutional analysis of offices of technology transfer in the United States

Abstract

This paper considers the adoption of institutional innovations by not for profit organizations, an issue that can be considered in the context of the extensive literature on the adoption of technological innovation by firms. The specific institutional innovation considered is the offices of technology transfer (OTT)—the organization that assemble and disclose university innovations and negotiate and enforce licenses with users of these innovations. We propose a theoretical framework that depart from previous studies by focusing on the timing decision of institutions rather than on the percentage of institutions that adopt at each point in time. Our theoretical framework also incorporates organization theory via imitation effects on the timing of adoption. We find that number of adopters has an S-shape function of time, which may indicate a strong element of imitation led universities to create OTTs. We also find that universities with higher research incomes and rankings were earlier adopters of the OTT model and that universities with medical schools were generally late adopters. Finally, we find that the number of universities who have already adopted the OTT model increases the speed by which other non-adopters make their OTT adoption decisions and that the number of invention disclosures, a primary indicator of output of OTTs, increases with the size of research budget, is smaller for those with medical schools, and larger for those that were earlier adopters of OTT. Section 1 of the paper discusses the recent trends in technology transfer while Section 2 reviews the advent of OTTs as facilitators of technology transfer activities. Section 3 reviews the relevant technology and institutional innovation literature. Section 4 develops a conceptual framework that links Sections 2 and 3 to analyze the advent and timing of the establishment of OTTs. Section 5 estimates the time of adoption of the OTT working model on the part of major research universities in the US, and analyzes the impact of time of adoption of the OTT model on the intensity of the technology transfer process. Section 6 presents empirical results while the conclusions and policy implications are discussed in Section 7.

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this section the terms “University” and “Research Institution” are used interchangeably.

  2. 2.

    Other authors have suggested that what the Bayh–Dole Act has done is to add layers of administrators that have not necessarily resulted in an easier commercialization of ideas process (Litan et al. 2007).

  3. 3.

    Offices of technology transfer are also called offices of technology licensing (OTLs), sponsored project offices (SPOs) and office of industrial relations (OIRs) among others. In this analysis, we will refer to all of them as OTTs.

  4. 4.

    Mimetic Isomorphism has been defined as “Conformity through imitation” (Haveman 1993). Other types of isomorphism are Coercive—when organizations are compelled to adopt organizational structures and Normative—when organizations adopt certain behavior because leaders claim they are superior (DiMaggio and Powell 1983).

  5. 5.

    Our empirical analysis supports this argument by showing that the differences in quality measured by ranking of different fields explains the timing of adoption of OTT only for certain levels of ranking.

  6. 6.

    This modeling approach requires that faculty quality x be distributed across all N university such that \( \int\limits_{1}^{N} {f\left( x \right)dx} = 1 \).

  7. 7.

    Note that Eq. (3) was defined previously.

  8. 8.

    Note that in our statistical analysis we use year as our regressor. In essence, year of OTT establishment and age of OTT are equivalent. We use age in Table 3 because, in our view, summary statistics are easier to read for OTT age than for year of OTT establishment.

  9. 9.

    Not also that there is a long tradition of relationship between universities with medical schools and the private sector, which is another factor that may reduce the need for the establishment of an OTT in a formal way even tough technology transfer was taking place.

References

  1. Argyres, N. S., & Liebeskind, J. P. (1998). Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35, 427–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. AUTM. (2007). Autm licensing survey, fiscal year 2007. Norwalk, CT: Association of University Technology Managers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Science, 15, 215–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bray, M. J., & Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees versus equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Feder, G., Just, R., & Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33, 255–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Feder, G., & Umali, D. L. (1993). The adoption of agricultural innovations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43, 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Graff, G., Heiman, A., Zilberman, D., Castillo, F., & Parker, D. (2002). Universities, technology transfer and industrial R&D. In R. E. Evenson, V. Santianello, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Economic and social issues in agricultural biotechnology (pp. 93–117). New York: CABI Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica, 25(4), 501–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hall, B., & Khan, B. (2002). Adoption of new technology, Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, pp. 37.

  14. Haveman, H. A. (1993). Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 593–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, LXXX(1), 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kerr, S., & Newell, R. G. (2003). Policy induced technology adotpion: Evidence from the U.S. lead phasedown. The Journal of Industrial Economics, LI, 317–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, B. (2006). Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review of synthesis of recent research. Food Policy, 32, 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 45(February), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and innovation in universities. RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Litan, R., Mitchel, L., & Reedy, E. J. (2007). Commercializing university innovations: Alternative approaches. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 8, 31–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. McWilliams, B., & Zilberman, D. (1996). Time of technology adoption and learning by using. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4, 139–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Parker, D., & Zilberman, D. (1993). University technology transfers: Impacts on local and U.S. economies. Contemporary Policy Issues, 11, 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Parker, D., Zilberman, D., & Castillo, F. (1998). Offices of technology transfer: Privatizing university innovations for agriculture. Choices, 13(First Quarter), 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Radaelli, C. M. (2000). Policy transfer in the European union: Institutional isomorphism as a source of legitimacy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(1), 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Redmond, W. H. (2003). Innovation, diffusion, and institutional change. Journal of Economic Issues, 37(3), 665–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ruttan, V. W., & Hayami, Y. (1984). Toward a theory of induced institutional innovation. Journal of Development Studies, 20(4), 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sampat, B. N. (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh–Dole. Research Policy, 35, 772–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stoneman, P. L. (1983). The economic analysis of technological change. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Stoneman, P. L. (Ed.). (1995). Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wright, B. D., Drivas, K., Lei, Z., & Merrill, S. A. (2014). Technology transfer: Industry-funded academic inventions boost innovation. Nature, 507(7492), 297–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zilberman, D., Zhao, J., & Heiman, A. (2012). Adoption versus adaptation, with emphasis on climate change. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 4, 27–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors knowledge comments by Bruce McWilliams, Marcos Adamson and participants at the Seminar “Universities and Technology Transfer in Costa Rica” at the University of Costa Rica, March 2008 as well as attendees at a seminar talk by Federico Castillo at the Hebrew University in Rehovot, Israel in March, 2012. We also thank useful comments by the anonymous reviewers. Federico Castillo gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Ciriacy-Wantrup Post-Doctoral Fellowship at the University of California, Berkeley.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federico Castillo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castillo, F., Gilless, J.K., Heiman, A. et al. Time of adoption and intensity of technology transfer: an institutional analysis of offices of technology transfer in the United States. J Technol Transf 43, 120–138 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9468-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Adoption
  • Institutional innovation
  • Heterogeneity
  • Mimetic isomorphism

JEL Classification

  • O32
  • O33