Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The ivory tower approach to entrepreneurial linkage: productivity changes in university technology transfer

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Academic entrepreneurship has been intensively applied to the area of technology innovation and diffusion in the US. Along with the promotion of innovative approaches, universities take advantage of knowledge spillovers from their laboratories to the market for both economic development and financial gains. This study assessed individual university productivity in technology transfer using feasible measures of multiple input–output combinations and data envelopment analysis to examine panel data gathered over the period 1999–2007. A major finding is that there was substantial growth in the average productivity of university technology transfer during this period. The average annual productivity gain in the 90 universities was over 30%, indicating that universities’ technology transfer activities were relatively efficient in terms of their input to output ratio. The positive shifts in average productivity changes were primarily due to the increasing frequencies of commercial outputs. This finding suggests that universities and public policy should pay attention to stimulate commercial activities rather than to increase investments for upgrading a next level of realistic, long-term strategies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. D., & Griliches, Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annuals of INSEE, 49(50), 127–162.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of University Technology Managers. (2007). US licensing activity survey: FY 2006. Northbrook, IL: Association of University Technology Managers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldmann, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., Feldmann, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patenting and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 21–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities: A survey and statistical analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1–2), 199–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lindgren, B., & Roos, P. (1992). Productivity change in Swedish pharmacies 1980–1989: A non-parametric Malmquist approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3(1–2), 85–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Lovell, C. (1994). Production frontiers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of Royal Statistical Society Series A (General), 120(part 3), 253–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, R., Smith, P. C., & Street, A. (2006). Measuring efficiency in health care. Analytic techniques and health policy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  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 

  • Mille, M. (2004). The university, knowledge spillovers and local development: The experience of a new university. Higher Education Management & Policy, 16(3), 77–100.

    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 in the United States. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2010). Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 10–01).

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer, and spin-off performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). Effectiveness of technology transfer. Foundation and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, S. C. (2004). Data envelopment analysis: Theory and techniques for economics and operations research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M., Takegami, S., & Yin, J. (2001). Lessons learned about technology transfer. Technovation, 21, 253–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiford, L. M. (1996). Data envelopment analysis: The evolution of state of the art (1978–1995). Journal of Production Analysis, 7, 99–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 & Technology Management, 21, 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impacts of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2007). Intellectual property: The assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 529–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, Z. S., Mehrez, A., & Barboy, A. (1994). Academic department efficiency via DEA. Computers & Operations Research, 21(5), 543–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolp, C. (1990). Strengths and weaknesses of data envelopment analysis: An urban and regional perspective. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 14(2), 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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 

  • Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5(1), 19–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Patent and Trademark Office. (2007). US colleges and universities-utility patent grants 1969–2005. Washington, DC: US.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovation and organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (1998). Geographically localized knowledge: Spillovers or markets? Economic Inquiry, 36(1), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, East Carolina University, Brewster Building A-115, Greenville, NC, 27858, USA

    Younhee Kim

Authors
  1. Younhee Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Younhee Kim.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Total factor productivity growth during 1999–2007
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, Y. The ivory tower approach to entrepreneurial linkage: productivity changes in university technology transfer. J Technol Transf 38, 180–197 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9217-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9217-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation