Advertisement

The Evaluation Process of Research Commercialization Proposals and its Links to University Technology Transfer (TT) Strategy: A Case Study

  • Odysseas Cartalos
  • Alexander N. Svoronos
  • Elias G. Carayannis
Chapter
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)

Abstract

Open innovation and continuously evolving collaborative schemes of key actors along the innovation chain increase the complexity of technology transfer. University TTOs need to adapt to new challenges and therefore move from their traditional role of facilitating patenting and licensing activities to one of active engagement and deep involvement in supporting the different stages of research commercialization. Building successful TTO business models requires aligning the TTO service offerings with the characteristics of research produced in the parent institution and to the various forms of assistance needed by academic staff to commercially exploit their research results.

This work presents a method to assess and support commercialization proposals by university researchers. Although the intention is to choose projects with the highest exploitation potential, the objective is not to just have the top projects of an innovation contest, but rather select projects together with the support services and corresponding resources needed to enable them to reach their commercialization objectives. Moreover, it is shown that when available TTO resources are not enough to handle all projects with merit, a more formal approach can be adopted, involving the solution of a decision problem that may also serve as a planning tool for future TTO staffing.

Applied in an academic environment with limited technology transfer experience, the proposed assessment framework is used to develop a longer-term TTO strategy.

References

  1. Acs, Z.J., and D.B. Audretsch. 2010. Knowledge Spillover Entrepreneurship. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, International Handbook Series on Entrepreneurship, vol. 5, ed. Z.J. Acs and D.B. Audretsch. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1191-9_11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R., U. Daim, and F. Lavoie. 2007. Measuring the Efficiency of University Technology Transfer. Technovation 27: 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnesse, F., and A. Cohendet. 2001. Technology Transfer Revisited from the Perspective of the Knowledge-Based Economy. Research Policy 30: 1459–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D.B. 2014. From the Entrepreneurial University to the University for the Entrepreneurial Society. Journal of Technology Transfer 39: 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aykut, S., and Laffite, N.B. (2011). Technology Transfer Offices. Policy Brief, The Innovation Policy Platform https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/sites/default/files/Technology%20transfer%20offices_0_0.pdf.
  6. Baglieri, D., Baldi, F., and Tucci, C. (2015). University Technology Transfer Office Business Models: One Size does NOT Fit All. Paper presented at the DRUID Society Conference 2015, Rome, June 15–17 http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/159889emvut56oldvoc5eps4a9jp.pdf.
  7. Baldini, N. 2010. Do Royalties Really Foster University Patenting Activity? An Answer from Italy. Technovation 30: 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belderbos, R., M. Carree, and B. Lokshin. 2006. Complementarity in R&D Cooperation Strategies. Review of Industrial Organization 28: 401–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Belenzon, S., and Schankerman, M. 2007. Harnessing Success: Determinants of University Technology Licensing Performance. EI/44. Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3726/.
  10. Bozeman, B. 2000. Technology Transfer and Public Policy: A Review of Research and Theory. Research Policy 29: 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bozeman, B., H. Rimes, and J. Youtie. 2015. The Evolving State-of-the-art in Technology Transfer Research: Revisiting the Contingent Effectiveness Model. Research Policy 44: 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradley, S.R., C.S. Hayter, and A.N. Link. 2013a. Models and Methods of University Technology Transfer. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship 9 (6): 571–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2013b. Proof of Concept Centers in the United States: An Exploratory Look. Journal of Technology Transfer 38: 349–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bruneel, J., P. d’Este, and A. Salter. 2010. Investigating the Factors that Diminish the Barriers to University–Industry Collaboration. Research Policy 39 (7): 858–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell, A.F. 2007. How to Set Up a Technology Transfer Office: Experiences from Europe. In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, ed. A. Krattiger, R.T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, et al. Oxford/Davis: MIHR, PIPRA. Available at: www.ipHandbook.org.
  16. Carayannis, E.G., and D. Campbell. 2005. ‘Mode 3’: Meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective. In In Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2009. ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st Century Fractal Innovation Ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management 46: 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2010. Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, and Quintuple Helix and How do Knowledge, Innovation, and the Environment Related to Each Other: A Proposed Framework for Transdisciplinary Analysis of Sustainable Development and Social Ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 1 (1): 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carayannis, E.G., D. Meissner, and A. Edelkina. 2015. Targeted Innovation Policy and Practice Intelligence (TIP2E): Concepts and Implications for Theory, Policy and Practice. Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9433-8.
  20. Cartalos, O., S. Rozakis, and D. Tsiouki. 2016. A Method to Assess and Support Exploitation Projects of University Researchers. Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9519-y.
  21. Chapple, W., A. Lockett, D.S. Siegel, and M. Wright. 2005. Assessing the Relative Performance of University TTOs in the UK. Research Policy 34: 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  23. Clarysse, B., M. Wright, A. Lockett, E. VandeVelde, and A. Vohora. 2005. Spinning Out New Ventures: A Typology of Incubation Strategies from European Research Institutions. Journal of Business Venturing 20: 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clausen, J. (1999). Branch and Bound Algorithms–Principles and Examples. Technical Report, Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  25. Cockburn, I.M., and R.M. Henderson. 1998. Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics 46 (2): 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Colyvas, J., M. Crow, A. Gelijns, R. Mazzoleni, R.R. Nelson, N. Rosenberg, and B.N. Sampat. 2002. How Do University Inventions Get into Practice? Management Science 48: 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Conti, A., and P. Gaule. 2008. The CEMI Survey of University Technology Transfer Offices in Europe. Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne. http://cemi.epfl.ch/page-30722-en.html.Google Scholar
  28. Conti, A., and P. Gaule. 2011. Is the US Outperforming Europe in University Technology Licensing? A new Perspective on the European Paradox. Research Policy 40(1): 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Curi, C., C.C. Daraio, and P. Llerena. 2015. The Productivity of French Technology Transfer Offices after Government Reforms. Applied Economics 47: 3008–3019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dantzig, G. B. The Rand Corporation, and University of California, Berkeley 1963. Linear Programming and Extensions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  31. Debackere, K., and R. Veugelers. 2005. The Role of Academic Technology Transfer Organizations in Improving Industry Science Links. Research Policy 34: 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Debackere, K. 2012. The TTO, A University Engine Transforming Science into Innovation. League of European Research Universities (LERU), Advice Paper No 10 http://www.leru.org/files/publications/TTO_paper_final.pdf.
  33. Degroof, J.J., and E.B. Roberts. 2004. Overcoming Weak Entrepreneurial Infrastructures for Academic Spin-off Ventures. Journal of Technology Transfer 29: 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Djokovic, D., and V. Souitaris. 2008. Spinouts from Academic Institutions: A Literature Review with Suggestions for Further Research. Journal of Technology Transfer 33: 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Drivas, K., Balafoutis, A.T., and Rozakis S. 2016. Research Funding and Academic Output: Evidence from the Agricultural University of Athens, Prometheus (United Kingdom): 1-22, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2016.1150575.
  36. Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 2000. The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations. Research Policy 29: 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, C. Gebhardt, and B.R.C. Terra. 2000. The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm. Research Policy 29: 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. EARTO. 2014. The TRL Scale as a Research and Innovation Policy Tool. EARTO Recommendations. European Association of Research and Technology Organisations http://www.earto.eu/fileadmin/content/03_Publications/The_TRL_Scale_as_a_R_I_Policy_Tool_-_EARTO_Recommendations_-_Final.pdf.
  39. European Commission. 2008. Commission Recommendation on the Management of Intellectual Property in Knowledge Transfer Activities and Code Practice for Universities and Other Public Research Organizations, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/ip_recommendation.pdf.
  40. ———. 2009. Metrics for Knowledge Transfer from Public Research Organisations in Europe. Report from the European Commission’s Expert Group on Knowledge Transfer Metrics. European Commission-DG Research, Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/knowledge_transfer_web.pdf.
  41. ———. 2015. Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016-2017, Annex G. European Commission Decision C 6776 of 13 Oct 2015 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/wp/2016-2017/annexes/h2020-wp1617-annex-ga_en.pdf.
  42. ———. 2016. Science, Research and Innovation Performance of the EU. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  43. Florida, R., and W.M. Cohen. 1999. Engine or Infrastructure? The university Role in Economic Development. In Industrializing Knowledge: University–Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, ed. L.M. Branscomb, F. Kodama, and R. Florida, 589–610. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Foray, D., David, P. A., and Hall, B. 2009. Smart Specialisation – The Concept. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief No. 9.Google Scholar
  45. Gans, J.S., and S. Stern. 2003. The Product Market and the Market for “Ideas”: Commercialization Strategies for Technology Entrepreneurs. Research Policy 32: 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Grimpe, C., and H. Fier. 2010. Informal University Technology Transfer: A Comparison Between the United States and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer 35: 637–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gulbrandsen, M., and S. Slipersæter. 2007. The Third Mission and the Entrepreneurial University Model. In Universities and Strategic Knowledge Creation: Specialization and Performance in Europe, ed. A. Bonaccorsi and C. Daraio, 112–143. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  48. Gulbranson, C.A., and D.B. Audretsch. 2008. Proof of Concept Centers: Accelerating the Commercialization of University Innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer 33: 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Friedman, J., and J. Silberman. 2003. University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer 28(1): 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hallam, C., A. Leffel, and B. Garcia. 2011. Early Phase Technology Valuation in Intellectual Property Portfolios and its Impact on the Management and Commercialization of University-Derived Technologies. Proceedings, PICMET Conference 2011.Google Scholar
  51. Hayter, C. 2013. Harnessing University Entrepreneurship for Economic Growth: Factors of Success among University Spinoffs. Economic Development Quarterly 27 (1): 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Heslop, L.A., E. McGregor, and M. Griffith. 2001. Development of a Technology Readiness Assessment Measure: The Cloverleaf Model of Technology Transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Heinzl, J., Kor, A., Orange, G., and Kaufmann, H. 2008. Technology Transfer Model for Austrian Higher Education Institutions. Paper presented at the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, May 25–26, 2008.Google Scholar
  54. Jain, R.K., A.O. Martyniuk, M.M. Harris, R.N. Niermann, and K. Woldmann. 2003. Evaluating the Commercial Potential of Emerging Technologies. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 2: 32–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jensen, R.A., and M.C. Thursby. 2001. Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions. American Economic Review 91: 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. JRC. 2014. RIS3 Implementation and Policy Mixes. S3 Policy Brief Series No. 07. Brussels, European Commission Joint Research Centre http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/20182/114990/JRC91917_RIS3_implementation_and_policy_mixes_final.pdf/e56f2977-f217-475c-95c2-649c55d83b40.
  57. Karra, S.C., and Tolias, Y.A. 2012. Greek Universities and Knowledge Transfer Performance: Assessment, Implications and Prospects. Paper appeared in the proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Economic Society of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Oct. 11–12 http://www.innovatiasystems.eu/docs/Karra_and_Tolias_2012.pdf.
  58. Kerr, C. 2001. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Lach, S., and M. Schankerman. 2008. Incentives and Inventions in Universities. The Rand Journal of Economics 39: 403–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Link, A.N., D.S. Siegel, and B. Bozeman. 2007. An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of Academics to Engage in Informal University Technology Transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change 16: 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Litan, R., L. Mitchell, and E. Reedy. 2007. The University as Innovator: Bumps in the Road. Issues in Science and Technology 23: 57–66.Google Scholar
  62. Lockett, A., M. Wright, and S. Franklin. 2003. Technology Transfer and Universities’ Spin-out Strategies. Small Business Economics 20 (2): 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lockett, A., and M. Wright. 2005. Resources, Capabilities, Risk Capital and the Creation of University Spin-out Companies. Research Policy 34: 1043–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lundquist, G. 2003. A Rich Vision of Technology Transfer–Technology Value Management. Journal of Technology Transfer 28: 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mohannak, K., and Samtani, L. (2014). A Criteria-based Approach for Evaluating Innovation Commercialisation. Paper Presented at the DRUID Society Conference 2014, CBS, Copenhagen, June 16–18 http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/i1xk9l9pli4jnefryvacrvpjdy22.pdf.
  66. Ndonzuau, F.N., F. Pirnay, and B. Surlemont. 2002. A Stage Model of Academic Spin-off Creation. Technovation 22: 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. OECD. 2003. Turning Science into Business: Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organizations. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  68. ———. 2011. Reviews of Regional Innovation: Regions and Innovation Policy. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Publication Date: 04/05/2011 http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/oecdreviewsofregionalinnovationregionsandinnovationpolicy.htm.
  69. O’Shea, R.P., T.J. Allen, K.L. Morse, C. O’Gorman, and F. Roche. 2005. Entrepreneurial Orientation, Technology Transfer and Spin-off Performance of US Universities. Research Policy 34: 994–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. O’Shea, R.P., H. Chugh, and T.J. Allen. 2008. Determinants and Consequences of University Spinoff Activity: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Technology Transfer 33: 653–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Panagopoulos, A., and E.G. Carayannis. 2013. A Policy for Enhancing the Disclosure of University Faculty Invention. Journal of Technology Transfer 38: 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Phan, P., D. Siegel, and M. Wright. 2005. Science Parks and Incubators: Observations, Synthesis and Future Research. Journal of Business Venturing 20 (2): 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Perkmann, M., V. Tartari, M. McKelvey, E. Autio, A. Broström, P. D’Este, R. Fini, A. Geuna, R. Grimaldi, A. Hughes, S. Krabel, M. Kitson, P. Llerena, F. Lissoni, A. Salter, and M. Sobrero. 2013. Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A review of the Literature on University – Industry Relations. Research Policy 42: 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Powers, J.B., and P.P. McDougall. 2005. University Start-up Formation and Technology Licensing with Firms that Go Public: A Resource-based View of Academic Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 20: 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rahal, A.D., and L.C. Rabelo. 2006. Assessment Framework for the Evaluation and Prioritization of University Inventions for Licencing and Commercialization. Engineering Management Journal 18: 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sahini, E. 2014. Bibliometric Analysis of Greek Publications in International Scientific Journals. National Documentation Centre. Publication date: 15 Dec 2014 http://report04.metrics.ekt.gr/.
  77. Shane, S. 2004. Encouraging University Entrepreneurship? The Effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on University Patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing 19: 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Siegel, D.S., D.A. Waldman, and A.N. Link. 2003. Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study. Research Policy 32 (1): 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Siegel, D.S., D.A. Waldman, L. Atwater, and A.N. Link. 2004. Toward a Model of the Effective Transfer of Scientific Knowledge from Academicians to Practitioners: Qualitative Evidence from the Commercialization of University Technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 21: 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Siegel, D.S., R. Veugelers, and M. Wright. 2007a. Technology Transfer Offices and Commercialization of University Intellectual Property: Performance and Policy Implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23 (4): 640–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Siegel, D.S., M. Wright, and A. Lockett. 2007b. The Rise of Entrepreneurial Activity at Universities: Organizational and Societal Implications. Industrial and Corporate Change 16: 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thursby, J.G., R. Jensen, and M.C. Thursby. 2001. Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major US Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Thursby, J.C., and M.C. Thursby. 2002. Who is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing. Management Science 48: 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Thursby, J.G., and S. Kemp. 2002. Growth and Productive Efficiency of University Intellectual Property Licensing. Research Policy 31: 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thursby, J., and M. Thursby. 2007. Patterns of Research and Licensing Activity of Science and Engineering Faculty. In Science and the University, ed. P. Stephan and R. Ehrenberg. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  86. Thursby, J.G., A.W. Fuller, and M.C. Thursby. 2009. US Faculty Patenting: Inside and Outside the University. Research Policy 38: 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Thursby, J.G., and M.C. Thursby. 2003. Industry/University Licensing: Characteristics, Concerns and Issues from the Perspective of the Buyer. The Journal of Technology Transfer 28(3/4): 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Trueman, S., Borrell-Damian, L., and Smith, J. H. 2014. The Evolution of University-based Knowledge Transfer Structures, The EUIMA Collaborative Research Project Papers http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publications/Stephen_Trueman_Final.sflb.ashx.
  89. Vekinis, G. 2014. Technology Transfer in Practice: From Invention to Innovation. Presstime, Athens (eBook ISBN 978-960-93-5996-2 and Paperback ISBN 978-960-93-5855-2).Google Scholar
  90. Veugelers, R. 2014. Undercutting the Future? European Research Spending in Times of Fiscal Consolidation. Policy Contribution 2014/06, Bruegel http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/publications/pc_2014_06_.pdf.
  91. ———. 2016. The European Union Growing Innovation Divide. Policy Contribution 2016/08, Bruegel http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/pc_2016_08.pdf.
  92. Veugelers, R., and B. Cassiman. 2005. R&D Cooperation Between Firms and Universities. Some Empirical Evidence from Belgian Manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization 23 (5–6): 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Vinig, T., and D. Lips. 2015. Measuring the Performance of University Technology Transfer Using Meta Data Approach: The Case of Dutch Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer 40 (6): 1034–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Warren, A., R. Hanke, and D. Trotzer. 2008. Models for University Technology Transfer: Resolving Conflicts Between Mission and Methods and the Dependency on Geographic Location. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 1 (2): 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Weckowska, D.M. 2015. Learning in University Technology Transfer Offices: Transactions-Focused and Relations-Focused Approaches to Commercialization of Academic Research. Technovation 41 (42): 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Young, T.A. 2007. Establishing a Technology Transfer Office. In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, ed. A. Krattiger, R.T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, et al. Oxford/Davis: MIHR, PIPRA. Available at: www.ipHandbook.org.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Odysseas Cartalos
    • 1
  • Alexander N. Svoronos
    • 1
  • Elias G. Carayannis
    • 2
  1. 1.Logotech, Ltd.AthensGreece
  2. 2.George Washington UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations