Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology Licensing Performance and Strategy of US Research Institutions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
R&D Management in the Knowledge Era

Part of the book series: Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management ((ITKM))

Abstract

This study aims to develop institutional strategies improving licensing practice of academic research institutions based on understanding licensing performance and influencing institutional characteristics. The study resulted in a new approach that integrated the steps of identification of time lags in licensing, efficiency change analysis, and exploration of the influence of organizational characteristics on the efficiency change. A super-efficiency variable returns-to-scale DEA model was applied to the time-lag neutralized licensing data. This model measured the efficiency of US research institutions’ licensing performance over time. The study also included an innovative approach to resolve issues with the super efficiency DEA model, including mathematical infeasibility and zero data considerations. The results that are grounded on the comprehensive observations over multiple time durations provide an insight into the licensing practices of US research institutions. The recommendations for the research institutions are built on the relationships identified among academic prestige, research intensity, organizational characteristics of the technology licensing office, and licensing performance.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kim, J., & Daim, T. (2014). A new approach to measuring time-lags in technology licensing: Study of U.S. academic research institutions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 748–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ponomariov, B. (2008). Effects of university characteristics on scientists? Interactions with the private sector: An exploratory assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 485–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 

  4. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Do university policies make a difference? Research Policy, 34(3), 343–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. University technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wong, P.-K., Ho, Y.-P., & Singh, A. (2007). Towards an “entrepreneurial university” model to support knowledge-based economic development: The case of the national university of Singapore. World Development, 35(6), 941–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Woolgar, L. (2007). New institutional policies for university-industry links in Japan. Research Policy, 36(8), 1261–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gopalakrishnan, S., & Santoro, M. D. (2004). Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: The role of key organizational factors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(1), 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Abbott, W. F. (1974). Prestige and goals in american universities. Social Forces, 52(3), 401–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Powers, J. B. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26–50.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. RAND Journal of Economics (Blackwell), 39(2), 403–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Anderson, T. R., Daim, T. U., & Lavoie, F. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27(5), 306–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34(7), 1058–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35(4), 518–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rasmussen, E., Moen, O., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26(4), 518–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Macho-Stadler, I., Perez-Castrillo, D., & Veugelers, R. (2007). Licensing of university inventions: The role of a technology transfer office. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(3), 483–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sharma, M., Kumar, U., & Lalande, L. (2006). Role of university technology transfer offices in university technology commercialization: Case study of the carleton university foundry program. Journal of Services Research, 6, 109–139.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Vaidyanathan, G. (2008). Technology parks in a developing country: The case of India. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 285–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (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(1–2), 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kodama, T. (2008). The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university-industry linkages—an empirical study of tama in japan. Research Policy, 37(8), 1224–1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gulbranson, C., & Audretsch, D. (2008). Proof of concept centers: Accelerating the commercialization of university innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Acworth, E. B. (2008). University-industry engagement: The formation of the knowledge integration community (kic) model at the cambridge-mit institute. Research Policy, 37(8), 1241–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kapczynski, A., Chaifetz, S., Katz, Z., & Benkler, Y. (2005). Addressing global health inequities: An open licensing approach for university innovations. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 20(2), 1031–1114.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Trune, D. R., & Goslin, L. N. (1998). University technology transfer programs: A profit/loss analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 57(3), 197–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Welsh, R., Glenna, L., Lacy, W., & Biscotti, D. (2008). Close enough but not too far: Assessing the effects of university-industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism. Research Policy, 37(10), 1854–1864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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 

  32. Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hicks, D., Breitzman, A., Hamilton, K., & Narin, F. (2000). Research excellence and patented innovation. Science and Public Policy, 27(5), 310–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yusuf, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses. Research Policy, 37(8), 1167–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial university of waterloo. Research Policy, 37(8), 1175–1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., & Sampat, B. N. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lovell, C. A. K., & Rouse, A. P. B. (2003). Equivalent standard dea models to provide super-efficiency scores. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(1), 101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Cook, W. D., Liang, L., Zha, Y., & Zhu, J. (2009). A modified super-efficiency dea model for infeasibility. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(2), 276–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee, H.-S., Chu, C.-W., & Zhu, J. (2011). Super-efficiency dea in the presence of infeasibility. European Journal of Operational Research, 212(1), 141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Färe, R., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1978). Measuring the technical efficiency of production. Journal of Economic Theory, 19, 150–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R., & Diewert, W. E. (1982). The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity. Econometrica, 50(6), 1393–1414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., & Zhongyang, Z. (1994). Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. (cover story). American Economic Review, 84(1), 66–83.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: The best we can do with the s∗∗t we get to work with. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1271–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Decter, M., Bennett, D., & Leseure, M. (2007). University to business technology transfer—UK and USA comparisons. Technovation, 27(3), 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Heher, A. (2006). Return on investment in innovation: Implications for institutions and national agencies∗. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Bray, M. J., & Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. Equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Portland, OR, USA

    Jisun Kim, Tuğrul Daim & João Ricardo Lavoie

Authors
  1. Jisun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tuğrul Daim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. João Ricardo Lavoie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuğrul Daim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering and Technology, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

    Tuğrul Daim

  2. Faculty of Economics & Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Marina Dabić

  3. İzmir Institute of Technology, Urla, Izmir, Turkey

    Nuri Başoğlu

  4. Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

    João Ricardo Lavoie

  5. School of Computer Science, Innovation, and Management Engineering College of Management, Long Island University (LIU), Greenvale, NY, USA

    Brian J. Galli

Appendices

Appendix 1

The two decompositions are:

$$ M=\frac{D_v^{t+1}\left({x}^{t+1},{y}^{t+1}\right)}{D_v^t\left({x}^t,{y}^t\right)}\times {\left[\frac{D_v^t\left({x}^{t+1},{y}^{t+1}\right)}{D_v^{t+1}\left({x}^{t+1},{y}^{t+1}\right)}\times \frac{D_v^t\left({x}^t,{y}^t\right)}{D_v^{t+1}\left({x}^t,{y}^t\right)}\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}}={\mathrm{EC}}_v\times {\mathrm{TC}}_v $$
(20.2)
$$ {\mathrm{EC}}_v=\frac{D_v^{t+1}\left(t+1\right)}{D_v^t(t)} $$
(20.3)
$$ {\mathrm{TC}}_v={\left[\frac{D_v^t\left(t+1\right)}{D_v^{t+1}\left(t+1\right)}\times \frac{D_v^t(t)}{D_v^{t+1}(t)}\right]}^{\frac{1}{2}} $$
(20.4)

where D = efficiency, equivalent to ∅, Dt(xt, yt) = Dt(t): distance (efficiency) of a technology (xt, yt) to the frontier at time t, St(xt, yt) = scale efficiency change of a technology (xt, yt), EC efficiency change, TC technical change, subscript v = DEA model based on VRS (variable returns to scale), and subscript c = DEA model based on CRS (constant returns to scale).

Appendix 2

Table 20.7 Average efficiency change, technical change, and Malmquist Index scores of the 46 institutions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kim, J., Daim, T., Lavoie, J.R. (2019). Technology Licensing Performance and Strategy of US Research Institutions. In: Daim, T., Dabić, M., Başoğlu, N., Lavoie, J.R., Galli, B.J. (eds) R&D Management in the Knowledge Era. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15409-7_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation