Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany

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

Abstract

The aim of this study is to empirically analyze the performance of technology transfer offices (TTO) in Germany. Although being one of the largest and innovative economies in the world, there is only scarce evidence about the role and performance of TTO in university–industry technology transfer. While policy makers and university managers are often quite optimistic about the impact of TTO in fostering technology transfer into the region, consulting firms and research institutes report such institutions in Germany as superfluous and counterproductive. Using the number of invention disclosures as a performance measure, we analyze how variance in performance can be explained by different organizational structures and variables of TTO. Controlling for regional endowment and university specific effects, our results reveal that TTO performance is mainly a function of the kind of labor division within the TTO and the research intensity of the university. Knowing the drivers of TTO performance may help policy makers and university managers to reflect their strategies, mitigate weak points and thus foster performance.

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

Notes

  1. Chapple et al. (2005) obtained data from 50 out of 122 universities in the UK resembling in a similar response rate (41%).

  2. LMR are constructed through factor analysis with oblique rotation and a constraint of a one way commuting time of 60 min, resulting in 150 LMRs based on 440 administrative districts in Germany, which are not biased by administrative or political considerations (see Eckey et al. 2006 for further details).

  3. We employ the STATA routine developed by Becker and Ichino (2002) to obtain the propensity scores.

  4. We will not suppress the fact that some universities actively promote and foster technology transfer, like the LMU Munich or the TU Dresden, which are often cited as role models.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ArbNERrfG (2002). Gesetz zur Änderung des Arbeitnehmererfindungsgesetzes Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I (Nr. 4), 414.

  • Audretsch, D. B., Hülsbeck, M. & Lehmann E. E. (2011). Regional competitiveness, university spillovers and entrepreneurial activity. Small Business Economics (forthcoming).

  • Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship and regional growth—an evolutionary perspective. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5), 605–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., & Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. USA: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005b). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillover and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86(3), 641–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, S. O., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The Stata Journal, 2(4), 358–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Anderson, M., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(15), 1224–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruneel, J., D’Èste, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassima, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementary in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cepeda, M. S., Boston, R., Farrar, J. T., & Strom, B. L. (2003). Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. American Journal of Epidemiology, 158(3), 280–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • CHE Report (2009). Das CHE-Forschungsranking deutscher Universitäten 2009. Gemeinnütziges Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung (CHE). http://www.che.de/downloads/CHE_AP130_Forschungsranking_2009.pdf.

  • Colombo, D., D’Adda, D., & Piva, E. (2010). The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 113–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosh, A., & Hughes, A. (2010). Never mind the quality feel the width: University–industry links and government financial support for innovation in small high-technology businesses in the UK and the USA. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 66–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupe, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby, M. R., Zucker, L. G., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckey, H.-F., Kosfeld, R., & Türck, M. (2006). Abgrenzung deutscher Arbeitsmarktregionen. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 64(2006), 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Lukas, R. (2001). Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy, 30(2), 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production: Funding and the structure of university research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gonzàles-Pernia, J.L., Kuechle, G., & Peñaki-Legazkue I. (2011). An assessment of the determinants of university technology transfer. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, (forthcoming).

  • Greif, S., & Schmiedl, D. (2006). Patentatlas Deutschland. München: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, H. M. & Jaenicke J. (2010). What drives patenting and commerzialisation activity at Eastern German universities? The role of new public policy, institutional environment and individual prior knowledge. Journal of Technology Transfer, Online First, 1–24.

  • Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29(4/5), 567–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2001). Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the advanced technology program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, H. C. & Ozdenoren E. (2001). Intermediation in innovation: The role of technology transfer offices. Northwestern University.

  • Hülsbeck, M. & Lehmann E. E. (2010). The role of regional knowledge production in university technology transfer: Isolating coevolutionary effects, working paper University of Augsburg. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588930.

  • Hülsbeck, M. & Lehmann E. E. (2012). Academic entrepreneurship and board formation in science-based firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, (forthcoming).

  • Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienbaum Management Consultants GmbH (2006) Weiterentwicklung von Kriterien sowie Datenerhebung auf der Basis der Kriterien und Datenauswertung bezüglich der Kompetenz und Leistungsfähigkeit der Patent- und Verwertungsagenturen. Abschlußbericht im Auftrag des BMB.

  • Krücken, G., Meier, F., & Müller, A. (2007). Information, cooperation, and the blurring of boundaries–technology transfer in Germany and American discourses. Higher Education, 53(6), 675–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann E. E. & Warning S. (2010). The impact of regional endowments and university characteristics on university efficiency, working paper, University of Augsburg.

  • Liebeskind, J. P., Oliver, A., Zucker, L., & Brewer, M. (1996). Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7(4), 428–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., Rothaermel, F., & Siegel, D. (2008). University technology transfer: An introduction to the special issue. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., & Siegel, D. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university–industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11(3), 169–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2008). Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2009). Supply-side innovation and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 625–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meoli, M., Paleari, S. & Vismara S. (2011). Completing the technology transfer process: The IPOs and M&As of biotech spin-offs, Small Business Economics, (forthcoming).

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2), 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of U.S. university patents after the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981–1992. Management Science, 48(1), 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 181–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J. & Powell W. W. (2001).To patent or not: Faculty decision and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 99–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J. & Powell W. W. (2003).The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32(9), 1695–1711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H. & Siegel D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned from quantitative and qualitative research in the U.S. and the U.K. Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics 0609, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Economics.

  • Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12(1990), 295–336.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), 516–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., Agung S. D., & Jiang L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, Advance Access published July 18, 2007, 1–101.

  • Saragossi, S., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2003). What patent data reveal about universities: The case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schartinger, D., Schibany, A., & Gassler, H. (2001). Interactive relations between universities and firms: Empirical evidence from Austria. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 255–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellenthin, M. (2009). Technology transfer offices and university patenting in Sweden and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 603–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Swamidass, P. M., & Vulasa, V. (2009). Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 343–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ledebur, S. (2008). Technology transfer offices and university patenting—a review. Jena Economic Papers, 2008-033.

  • Warning, S. (2007). The economic analysis of universities: Strategic groups and positioning. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge financial support from the Global Business Management Center (GBM) University Augsburg. They also acknowledge the helpful comments from seminar participations at the UfO-Workshop on Business & Economics, Tuscany/Italy (2010), the workshop on Technology Transfer and Regional Competitiveness, Bergamo/Italy (2011), the annual conference of the T2S, George Washington University/USA (2010) and helpful suggestions from Alfredo Di Massis, Tommaso Minola, Michele Meoli, Silvio Vismara and two anonymous referees.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, University of Augsburg, Universitaetsstr. 16, 86159, Augsburg, Germany

    Marcel Hülsbeck, Erik E. Lehmann & Alexander Starnecker

  2. GBM, Augsburg, Germany

    Marcel Hülsbeck, Erik E. Lehmann & Alexander Starnecker

  3. CCSE, Augsburg, Germany

    Marcel Hülsbeck & Erik E. Lehmann

  4. CCSE, Bergamo, Italy

    Marcel Hülsbeck & Erik E. Lehmann

Authors
  1. Marcel Hülsbeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erik E. Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander Starnecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erik E. Lehmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hülsbeck, M., Lehmann, E.E. & Starnecker, A. Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. J Technol Transf 38, 199–215 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9243-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9243-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation