Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Setting up a technology commercialization office at a non-entrepreneurial university: an insider’s look at practices and culture

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research faculty’s views of the merits of commercialisation and their role in the process can hinder or even sabotage technology transfer. Dispersing myths and addressing suspicion and deep misunderstandings held by communities of practice, such as the community of faculty researchers, is of paramount importance in order to develop a sense of comfort and build trust among faculty and the TCO. This is particularly true for non-entrepreneurial universities. Lack of shared understandings can make the job of the TCO arduous; equally, not addressing the cultural and moral aspects of technology transfer reproduces suspicion and mistrust. In support of this proposition, the article focuses on the relationship between TCOs and research staff in a non entrepreneurial research environment, the Agricultural University of Athens, to offer qualitative evidence showing the key importance of addressing the lack of trust and cultural gaps via education and training tailored to the needs of individual research teams.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. However, although the upstream–downstream structure is often used to describe respective roles, the distinctions among basic research, applied research, and development are increasingly blurry, see John M. Golden, Biotechnology, Technology Policy, and Patentability: Natural Products and Invention in the American System, 50 EMORY L. J. 101, 166 (2001).

  2. This emerged from various discussions with the management. Also see Owen-Smith and Powell (2001).

  3. Evaluation of the TCO was performed when the 2 year program ended by an independent academic from a UK University.

  4. The legal advisor of the University is a civil servant who gives general legal advice on university matters. They have no IP law specialization.

  5. Such as DNA sequences and research tools.

  6. See the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology available at http://www.autm.net/AUTMMain/media/Advocacy/Documents/Points_to_Consider.pdf. Note that the intellectual property advisor was not involved in drafting contracts.

  7. Haberman v. Jackel International Ltd (1999) FSR 683 (Great Britain).

  8. On this point also see Thursby and Thursby (2002).

  9. To illustrate non obviousness in combination inventions an example from the European Patent Office practice notes was used which the teams found very useful: Example 1: Machine for producing sausages consists of a known mincing machine and a known filling machine disposed side by side. Requirement of non obviousness not satisfied. Example 2: A mixture of medicines consists of a painkiller (analgesic) and a tranquillizer (sedative). It was found that through the addition of the tranquillizer, which intrinsically appeared to have no painkilling effect, the analgesic effect of the painkiller was intensified in a way which could not have been predicted from the known properties of the active substances. Requirement of non obviousness satisfied.

  10. The same concerns with regard to social responsibility and the public mission of university were raised in the context of trade secrets (information that is treated as a secret because it provides a person or entity with a competitive advantage). Although some aspects of the technologies of two teams in group B could be protected by trade secrets, generally universities avoid this route because it conflicts with their mission to freely publish and disseminate knowledge for the benefit of mankind.

References

  • Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., & Stein, J. C. (2008). Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. The Rand Journal of Economics, 39(3), 617–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., & Göktepe-Hultén, D. (2015). University patenting in Europe. In A. N. Link, D. S. Siegel, & M. Wright (Eds.), The Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship (p. 188). University of Chicago Press.

  • Baldini, N. (2008). Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence. Scientometrics, 75(2), 289–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennich-Bjorkman, L. (1997). Organising innovative research: The inner life of university departments. Issues in Higher Education Series. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1996). Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. New England Journal of Medicine, 335(23), 1734–1739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., & Wise, D. (1986). Industrial support of university research in biotechnology. Science, 231(4735), 242–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulut, H., & Moschini, G. (2009). US universities’ net returns from patenting and licensing: A quantile regression analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 18(2), 123–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calderini, M., & Franzoni, C. (2004). Is academic patenting detrimental to high quality research. In An empirical analysis of the relationship between scientific careers and patent applications. Bocconi University: Cespri Working Paper, (p. 162).

  • Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., Causino, N., & Blumenthal, D. (2000). Data withholding in academic medicine: characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy, 29(2), 303–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L., Larsen, M. T., & Lotz, P. (2011). Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferne, G. (1995). Science and technology in the new world order. In E. Krieger & F. Gallembeck (Eds.), Science and technology in Brazil: a new policy for a global world (Vol. 1). Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getulio Vargas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, R. (2012). Commercializing University Research: Beyond Economic Incentives. In F. Scott Kieff & T. A. Paredes (Eds.), Perspectives on Commercializing Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden, J. M. (2001). Biotechnology, Technology Policy, and Patentability: Natural Products and Invention in the American System. Emory Law Journal, 50, 101–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study comparison. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 415–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heisey, P. W., & Adelman, S. W. (2011). Research expenditures, technology transfer activity, and university licensing revenue. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 38–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, B., Madsen, M. B., & Vincent, C. (2001). Danish research environments. An investigation in the current situation. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaghan, W. N., & Lounsbury, M. (2006). Artifacts, articulation work and institutional residue. In A. Rafaeli & M. Pratt (Eds.), Artifacts and organizations: Beyond mere symbolism (pp. 259–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, D. A. (2006). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudson, W., Wysocki, A., Champagne, J., & Peterson, H. C. (2004). Entrepreneurship and innovation in the agri-food system. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(5), 1330–1336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 411–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Win, H. N. (2004). Technology transfer between university research centers and industry in Singapore. Technovation, 24(5), 433–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemley, M. A. (2007). Are universities patent trolls. Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 18, 611.

    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., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 110–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2008a). Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2008b). Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005a). Speed to market as a success factor in technology transfer. Research Policy, 34(8), 1058–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R. (2012). Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation. Cambridge Journal of Economics.

  • 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. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh-Dole act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (2001). Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2014). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2014 (p. 328). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouellette, L. L. (2012). Do patents disclose useful information? Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 25(2), 531.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagopoulos, A., & Carayannis, E. G. (2013). A policy for enhancing the disclosure of university faculty invention. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 341–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rai, A. & Sampat, B. (2015). Accountability, Government Rights, and the Public Interest A Thirty-Year Retrospective. The Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship, 75.

  • Sampat, B. (2002). Private parts: Patents and academic research in the twentieth century. In Research Symposium of the Next Generation of Leaders in Science and Technology Policy (pp. 22–23).

  • Sampat, B. N. (2009) The Bayh-Dole model in developing countries: Reflections on the Indian bill on publicly funded intellectual property. UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development-Policy Brief 5 (2009): 2009.

  • Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). University technology transfer offices, licensing, and start-ups. Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship, 1–40.

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2000). The neo-liberal university. In New Labor Forum (pp. 73–79). Labor Resource Center, Queens College, City University of New York.

  • So, A. D., Sampat, B. N., Rai, A. K., Cook-Deegan, R., Reichman, J. H., Weissman, R., et al. (2008). Is Bayh-Dole good for developing countries? Lessons from the US experience. PLoS Biology, 6(10), e262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swamidass, P. M., & Vulasa, V. (2009). Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 343–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J., Fuller, A. W., & Thursby, M. (2009). US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university. Research Policy, 38(1), 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major US universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Are faculty critical? Their role in university–industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 162–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2007). Patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty (p. 2007). Science and the University, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdivia, W. D. (2013). University start-ups: Critical for improving technology transfer. Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N., & S’Jegers, R. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 249–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-techspinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 17–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, H. L. (2010). Intellectual property rights and innovation: Evidence from the humangenome (No. w16213). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, TECHNIS Research Group, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Katerina Sideri

  2. Department of Economics, TECHNIS Research Group, University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece

    Andreas Panagopoulos

Authors
  1. Katerina Sideri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Panagopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Panagopoulos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sideri, K., Panagopoulos, A. Setting up a technology commercialization office at a non-entrepreneurial university: an insider’s look at practices and culture. J Technol Transf 43, 953–965 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9526-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9526-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation