Managing Life Science Innovations in Public Research Through Holistic Performance Measures

  • Ruth M. Herzog
  • Christopher Wasden


Addressing the innovation gap is today considered the third task for public research organizations (PROs) in addition to their traditional tasks of research and teaching. Thus, PROs need to adapt their strategies and research management organization so that more innovative ideas from research will enter the market for the benefit of society. Innovation can thus be defined as value-creating novelties. The commercialization of research results is usually managed through technology transfer offices (TTOs), serving as an interface to industry. How PROs create value is increasingly subject to performance measurement and performance-based budgeting. Applying holistic measures will help adjust the overall strategy of the PRO in the direction of innovation and balance multiple interests and goals. Holistic performance measurement is based on the four dimensions of the decision-oriented model of research production (input, processes, output, and outcome) corresponding to the pillars of innovation. In this model, patenting is a key innovation process in academic life sciences that arises from the co-production between researchers and TTOs.


Technology Transfer Technology Transfer Office Innovation Chain Public Research Organization Technology Transfer Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Hellmann T (2007) The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap. J Econ Behav Organ 63:624–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union SEC (2010) 116, COM (2010) 546 final, p 6.­cation_en.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2012
  3. 3.
    Levy D, Wasden C, Reich A (2011) If innovation isn’t measured can it be managed? How universities manage innovation through disciplined and novel measures. Price Waterhouse Coopers ReportGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    OECD (2003) Turning science into business: patenting and licensing at public research organizations. OECD, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264100244-enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zink KJ (1998) Total quality management as a holistic management concept. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goktepe D, Mahangaonkar P (2008) What do scientists want: money or fame? Jena Economic Research Papers, No. 2008–032Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Etzkovitz H, Goktepe D (2005) The co-evolution of the university technology transfer office and the linear model of innovation. Paper to be presented at the DRUID tenth anniversary summer conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 27–29, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rassenhövel S (2010) Performance Messung im Hochschulbereich. Gabler, WiesbadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abrams I, Leung G, Stevens AJ (2009) How are U.S. technology transfer offices tasked and motivated—is it all about the money? Res Manag Rev 17(1):18–50Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stevens A (2003) 20 years of academic licensing—royalty income and economic impact. J Licensing Exec Soc Int (les Nouvelles) 38:133–140Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merrill SA, Mazza A-M (eds) (2010) Managing university intellectual property in the public interest. Committee on Management of University Intellectual Property: lessons from a ­generation of experience, research and dialogue. The National Academies Press (NAP), WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kordal R, Sanga A, Smith R (eds) AUTM U.S. licensing activity survey: FY2009. Survey summary. Association for University Technology Managers, Deerfield, IL. Accessed 23 Oct 2012
  13. 13.
    European Commission: Metrics for knowledge transfer from public research organizations in Europe. Expert group report, EUR 23894, 2009, EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research, Accessed 23 Oct 2012
  14. 14.
    Sharer M, Faley TL (2008) The strategic management of the technology transfer function—aligning goals with strategies, objectives and tactics. J Licensing Exec Soc Int (les Nouvelles) 43:170–179Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Batrla R, Licht G (2004) Technologietransfer im Vergleich. Eine Fallstudie. Wissenschafts­management 6:12–17Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heher AD (2007) Benchmarking of technology transfer offices and what it means for developing countries. In: Krattiger A (ed) Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: a handbook of best practices, vol 1. MIHR-USA, Davis. Chapter no. 3.5, pp 207–228Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Littmann BH (2011) An NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences: is a focus on drug discovery the best option? Nat Rev Drug Discov 10:471. doi:10.1038/nrd3357-c1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, Persinger CC, Munos BH, Lindborg SR, Schacht A (2010) How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wellenreuther R, Keppler D, Mumberg D, Ziegelbauer K, Lessl M (2012) Promoting drug discovery by collaborative innovation: a novel risk- and reward-sharing partnership between the German Cancer Research Center and Bayer Healthcare. Drug Discov Today 17(21–22):1242–1248. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2012.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Editor 2013

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ, German Cancer Research Center)HeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations