Skip to main content

The complementarities between formal and informal channels of university–industry knowledge transfer: a longitudinal approach

The Journal of Technology Transfer volume 45, pages 31–55 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

In this paper we study the interplay between formal and informal channels of university–industry knowledge transfer (UIKT) over time. To do so, we rely on longitudinal and qualitative interview data analysis allowing us to observe the notable research and valorization trajectories of two reputable researchers in the fields of robotics and pharmacy at the University of Strasbourg. Our findings show that: (1) dynamic complementarities between formal and informal UIKT are important; (2) at the individual and team level, such interactions contribute to creating a strong cumulative effect with regard to valorization activity; (3) They also reinforce the collective dimension of valorization, which is performed by teams rather than by isolated individuals; and (4) the best academic entrepreneurs make use of the different UIKT channels in an entrepreneurial way with a clear long-run valorization strategy in mind. These results have strong managerial and political implications with regard to the valorization of academic research.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. For the sake of anonymity, all names in this section have been changed.

References

  • Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy,42(2), 408–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. K. (2001). University-to-industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews,3(4), 285–302.

    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(1), 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 

  • Amesse, F., & Cohendet, P. (2001). Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy. Research Policy,30, 1459–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy,37(10), 1865–1883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azagra-Caro, J. M., Barberá-Tomás, D., Edwards-Schachter, M., & Tur, E. M. (2017). Dynamic interactions between university-industry knowledge transfer channels: A case study of the most highly cited academic patent. Research Policy,46(2), 463–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2009). The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality and direction of (public) research output. The Journal of Industrial Economics,57(4), 637–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battistella, C., De Toni, A. F., & Pillon, R. (2016). Inter-organisational technology/knowledge transfer: A framework from critical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer,41(5), 1195–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Freitas, I. M. B. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy,37(10), 1837–1853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessy, C., & Brousseau, E. (1997). Brevet, protection et diffusion des connaissances: une relecture néo-institutionnelle des propriétés de la règle de droit. Revue d’économieindustrielle,79(1), 233–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, G. C., & Stephan, P. E. (2010). The economics of university science and the role of foreign graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. In C. T. Clotfelter (Ed.), American universities in a global market (pp. 129–161). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation,29(2), 142–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. The Journal of Technology Transfer,41(4), 661–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Rimes, H., & Youtie, J. (2015). The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy,44(1), 34–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. (2013). Models and methods of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship,9(6), 571–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buenstorf, G. (2009). Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society. Research Policy,38, 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calderini, M., Franzoni, C., & Vezzulli, A. (2009). The unequal benefits of academic patenting for science and engineering research. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,56(1), 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Valentina, T., & Salter, A. (2011). The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy,40, 1084–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., & Walsh, J. (1998). Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. Challenges to Research Universities,171(200), 59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not) (No. w7552). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science,48(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., D’Adda, D., & Piva, E. (2010). The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer,35(1), 113–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M., & Grilli, L. (2005). ‘Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view. Research Policy,34, 795–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior,27, 305–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crespi, G., D’Este, P., Fontana, R., & Geuna, A. (2011). The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer. Research Policy,40(1), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Young, C. (2017). A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research. The Journal of Technology Transfer,42(4), 923–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2007). Patent and publication activities of German professors: An empirical assessment of their co-activity. Research Evaluation,16(4), 311–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy,36(9), 1295–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer,36, 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlborg, C., Lewensohn, D., Danell, R., & Sundberg, C. J. (2017). To invent and let others innovate: A framework of academic patent transfer modes. The Journal of Technology Transfer,42(3), 538–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review,23(4), 660–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,14(4), 532–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, W., & Senker, J. (1994). Making sense of diversity: Public–private sector research linkage in three technologies. Research Policy,23(6), 673–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzoni, C., & Lissoni, F. (2009). Academic entrepreneurship: Definitional issues, policy implications and a research agenda. In A. Varga (Ed.), Academic entrepreneurship and regional development. London: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbin, A., & Drnovsek, M. (2016). Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework. The Journal of Technology Transfer,41(5), 979–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2013). Formal and informal knowledge and technology transfer from academia to industry: Complementarity effects and innovation performance. Industry and Innovation,20(8), 683–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. F. (1994). Case studies in organizational research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research. A practical guide (pp. 208–229). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S., Lubynsky, R., & Maroulis, S. (2017). Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs. The Journal of Technology Transfer,42(6), 1237–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hottenrott, H., & Lawson, C. (2017). Fishing for complementarities: Research grants and research productivity. International Journal of Industrial Organization,51, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hottenrott, H., & Thorwarth, S. (2011). Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity. Kyklos,64(4), 534–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K. G., & Murray, F. E. (2009). Does patent strategy shape the long-run supply of public knowledge? Evidence from human genetics. Academy of Management Journal,52(6), 1193–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1985). Temporal stability and response-order biases in participant descriptions of organizational decisions. Academy of Management Journal,28(4), 943–950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iorio, R., Labory, S., & Rentocchini, F. (2017). The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian academic scientists. Research Policy,46(2), 497–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitative research. In C. Cassell & G. Simon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 11–22). London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchberger, M. A., & Pohl, L. (2016). Technology commercialization: A literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts. The Journal of Technology Transfer,41(5), 1077–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Saïhi, M., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2010). Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy,39, 1387–1403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science,1(3), 248–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G., Gilbert, R., & Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,1987(3), 783–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., Siegel, D., & 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 

  • Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. D. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy,34(7), 981–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics,19, 179–208.

    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 

  • Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University–industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh–Dole Act. California: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? The Journal of Technology Transfer,30(1–2), 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,63, 648–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Kane, C., Cunningham, J., Mangematin, V., & O’Reilly, P. (2015). Underpinning strategic behaviours and posture of principal investigators in transition/uncertain environments. Long Range Planning,48(3), 200–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olmos-Peñuela, J., Castro-Martínez, E., & D’Este, P. (2014). Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents. Research Policy,43, 696–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities. Research Policy,32(6), 1081–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy,42(2), 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews,9(4), 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy,37(10), 1884–1891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What is a processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management,13(4), 337–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship,2(2), 77–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos-Vielba, I., Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., & Woolley, R. (2016). Scientific research groups’ cooperation with firms and government agencies: Motivations and barriers. Journal of Technology Transfer,41, 558–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rentocchini, F., D’Este, P., Manjarrés-Henríquez, L., & Grimaldi, R. (2014). The relationship between academic consulting and research performance: Evidence from five Spanish universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization,32, 70–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, V., & Matt, M. (2016). Development of academic entrepreneurship in a non-mature context: The role of the university as a hub-organisation. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,28(9–10), 724–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E. (2009). Tracking the placement of students as a measure of technology transfer. In G. D. Libecap (Ed.), Measuring the social value of innovation: A link in the university technology transfer and entrepreneurship equation (pp. 113–140). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    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. (2003). University licensing and the Bayh–Dole act. Science,301(5636), 1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toole, A. A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2010). Commercializing science: is there a university “brain drain” from academic entrepreneurship? Management Science,56(9), 1599–1614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy,33(3), 425–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation,17(9), 491–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law & Economics,22(2), 233–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly,36, 269–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science,316(5827), 1036–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy,37(8), 1188–1204.

    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 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for the quality of their report and their insightful comments which contribute to the improvement of the paper. We also acknowledge the support from the French ANR (National Agency for Research), which funded the Cocon project and the two professors of the University of Strasbourg who shared with us their entrepreneurial experience.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Strasbourg, University of Lorraine, CNRS, BETA, 67000, Strasbourg, France

    Véronique Schaeffer, Sıla Öcalan-Özel & Julien Pénin

Authors
  1. Véronique Schaeffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sıla Öcalan-Özel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julien Pénin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Véronique Schaeffer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schaeffer, V., Öcalan-Özel, S. & Pénin, J. The complementarities between formal and informal channels of university–industry knowledge transfer: a longitudinal approach. J Technol Transf 45, 31–55 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9674-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9674-4

Keywords

  • University research valorization
  • Formal and informal technology transfer
  • Academic entrepreneurship
  • University industry linkages

JEL Classification

  • O32
  • O34