Skip to main content

University Research Commercialisation: Contextual Factors

Part of the SpringerBriefs in Business book series (BRIEFSBUSINESS)

Abstract

University research commercialisation is influenced and driven by macro and institutional factors that will determine how universities support technology transfer. Universities in creating and developing technology transfer offices need to take a proactive strategic approach that is embedded in their local environmental conditions. The business model framework for TTOs draws together key components that address these contextual factors, as well as creating a strong organisational posture to support further development and evolution.

Keywords

  • Barriers
  • Stimulants
  • Institutional factors
  • Technology transfer
  • Entrepreneurial
  • Universities
  • Industry

In general, the process of commercialising intellectual property is very complex, highly risky, takes a long time, and costs much more than you think it will.

US Congress, Committee on Science and Technology (1985, p. 12)

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-41946-2_2
  • Chapter length: 17 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-41946-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 2.1

Notes

  1. 1.

    It must be acknowledged that some of the issues suggested will be connected to the types of pressures that will emanate from Government agencies and funding bodies. The authors however recommend a pro-active approach to implementing such policies rather than having them imposed. This relates to rationale that successful transfer stems from experience and older policies. Hence the earlier policies are put in place the more benefit in terms of long-term outcomes.

References

  • Baden-Fuller C, Morgan MS (2010) Business models as models. Long Range Plan 43(2–3):156–171

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Baglieri D, Baldi F, Tucci CL (2018) University technology transfer office business models: one size does not fit all. Technovation 76:51–63

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Caldera A, Debande O (2010) Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: an empirical analysis. Res Policy 39(9):1160–1173

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Casadesus-Masanell R, Ricart JE (2010) From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Plan 43(2–3):195–215

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough HW (2007) Why companies should have open business models. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 48(2):22

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham JA, Link AN (2015) Fostering university-industry R&D collaborations in European Union countries. Int Entrep Manag J 11(4):849–860

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham J, O’Reilly P, O’Kane C, Mangematin V (2014) The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. J Technol Transf 39(1):93–110

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham J, O’Kane C, O’Reilly P, Mangematin V (2015) Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators. Int J Technol Manag 68(3–4):176–201

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham JA, Mangematin V, O’Kane C, O’Reilly P (2016) At the frontiers of scientific advancement: the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded principal investigators. J Technol Transf 41(4):778–797

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham JA, Guerrero M, Urbano D (2017) Entrepreneurial universities—overview, reflections, and future research agendas. In: Siegel D (ed) The world scientific reference on entrepreneurship. Volume 1: Entrepreneurial universities technology and knowledge transfer. World Scientific Publishing, Hackensack, pp 3–19

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan B, Cunningham JA, Menter M, McGregor C (2019) The role and function of cooperative research centers in entrepreneurial universities: a micro level perspective. Manag Decis 57:3406

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fassin Y (2000) The strategic role of university-industry liaison offices. J Res Adm 1(2):31–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Forfas (2004) From research to the marketplace: patent registration and technology transfer in Ireland, Forfas

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman M, Feller I, Bercovitz J, Burton R (2002) Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Manag Sci 48(1):105–121

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero M, Urbano D, Cunningham J, Organ D (2014) Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: a case study comparison. J Technol Transf 39(3):415–434

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H. (2004). University-industry research partnerships in the United States. https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/1897/ECO2004-14.pdf

  • Hülsbeck M, Lehmann EE, Starnecker A (2013) Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. J Technol Transf 38(3):199–215

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Evans D, Klofsten M, Andersson E, Pandya D (1999) Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: the role of the industrial liaison office. R&D Manag 29(1):47–56

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert R (2003) Lambert review of business-university collaboration. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1509981

  • Large D, Belinko K, Kalligatsi K (2000) Building successful technology commercialization teams: pilot empirical support for the theory of cascading commitment. J Technol Transf 25(2):169–180

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Link AN, Siegel DS, Bozeman B (2017) An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in formal university technology transfer. In: Universities and the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Magretta J (2002) Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangematin V, O’Reilly P, Cunningham J (2014) PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers. J Technol Transf 39(1):1–10

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart J, Salter A, Patel P, Scott A, Duran X (2002) Measuring third stream activities. Final report to the Russell Group of Universities. SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA (2001) The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Res Policy 30(1):99–119

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nelsen L (2001) University technology transfer practices: reconciling the academic and commercial interests in data access and use. http://www.nap.edu/html/codata_2nd/ch13.html

  • O’Kane C, Zhang JA, Cunningham JA, O’Reilly P (2017) What factors inhibit publicly funded principal investigators’ commercialization activities? Small Enterp Res 24(3):215–232

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly P, Cunningham JA (2017) Enablers and barriers to university technology transfer engagements with small-and medium-sized enterprises: perspectives of principal investigators. Small Enterp Res 24(3):274–289

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2003) Turning business into science: patenting and licensing at public research organisations. OECD, Paris

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Organ DJ, Cunningham J (2011) Entrepreneurship in the academy: the case for a micro-institutional analysis. DRUID 2011 on innovation, strategy, and structure—organizations, institutions, systems and regions at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, 15–17 June 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez AM, Tejedor ACP (1995) University-industry relationships in peripheral regions: the case of Aragon in Spain. Technovation 15(10):613–625

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schrader S (1991) Informal technology transfer between firms: cooperation through information trading. Res Policy 20(2):153–170

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Scott A, Steyn G, Geuna A, Brusoni S, Steinmueller E (2001) The economic returns to basic research and the benefits of university-industry relationships: a literature review and update of findings. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/18177/

  • Shattock M (2001) In what way do changing university–industry relations affect the management of higher education institutions. In Part III, in Hernes G, Martin M (eds), Management of University-Industry Linkages, Policy Forum (No. 11)

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel DS, Waldman D, Link A (2003) Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Res Policy 32(1):27–48

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens A, Phil D (2003) 20 years of academic licensing—royalty income and economic impact. J Licensing Exec Soc Int (les Nouvelles) 38:133–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (2010) Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan 43(2–3):172–194

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby JG, Jensen R, Thursby MC (2001) Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major US universities. J Technol Transf 26(1–2):59–72

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • University-Industry Collaboration Initiative (RCI) (2003) Working together, creating knowledge. Business Higher Education Forum

    Google Scholar 

  • US Congress (1985) Hearings of the committe on science & technology, US house of representatives, 98th Congress, second session. 21 March 1984

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dierdonck R, Debackere K (1988) Academic entrepreneurship at Belgian universities. R&D Manag 18(4):341–353

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Vinig T, Lips D (2015) Measuring the performance of university technology transfer using meta data approach: the case of Dutch universities. J Technol Transf 40(6):1034–1049

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cunningham, J.A., Harney, B., Fitzgerald, C. (2020). University Research Commercialisation: Contextual Factors. In: Effective Technology Transfer Offices. SpringerBriefs in Business. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41946-2_2

Download citation