Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integration versus separation: structure and strategies of the technology transfer office (TTO) in medical research organizations

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

Abstract

Establishing technology transfer offices (TTOs) within research organizations is one initiative used to facilitate successful commercialization. Research organizations may choose to either outsource the commercialization expertise (separation model) or incorporate it within their organizational structure (integration model). Ensuring the success of these integration TTOs, face many challenges, including challenges based on tensions from researchers within research organizations about the perceived differences in opinions, rules, norms and reward systems of research and commercialization. Using qualitative data from interviews from researchers and the integrated TTO personnel, this paper describes the interactions of researchers and integrated TTO personnel in five Australian medical research organizations. Despite strong researcher concerns and fears about research commercialization, a number of strategies employed by integrated TTOs were identified to encourage researcher engagement. These include the flexibility of TTO policies to researcher needs; offering collective incentives; and being visible within the organization.

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

  • Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 382–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, T. C., Makela, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialised? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1424–1447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Causino, N., & Seashore Louis, K. (1996). Participation of life science faculty in research relationships with industry. The New England Journal of Medicine, 335, 1734–1739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, E. G., Clarridge, B. R., Gokhale, M., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N. A., et al. (2002). Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 473–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., Causino, N., & Blumenthal, D. (2000). Data withholding in academic medicine: charateristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy, 29, 303–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curi, C., Daraio, C., & Llerena, P. (2012). University technology transfer: how (in) efficient are French universities? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 629–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with Industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34, 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derrick, G. E., & Bryant, C. (2012). The role of research incentives in medical research organizations. R&D Management, 43, 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D., & Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2002). Brokers on the boundary: Academy-industry liaison in Canadian universities. Higher Education, 44, 449–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation. Management Science, 49, 366–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göktepe-Hultén, D. (2008). Academic inventors and research groups: Entrepreneurial cultures at universities. Science and Public Policy, 35(9), 657–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatakenaka, S. (2006). Development of third stream activity: Lessons from international experience. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulsbeck, M., Lehmann, E. E., & Starnecker, A. (2013). Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2004). Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication, 25(3), 246–259.

  • Krimsky, S. (1991). Academic corporate ties in biotechnology: A quantitative study. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16, 275–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1401–1423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 23–43.

    Article  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, 1695–1711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampat, B. N. (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy, 35, 772–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Thursby, J. G., Thursby, M. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Organizational issues in university-industry technology transfer: An overview of the symposium issue. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, S. (2004). Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Science, 50(6), 835–853.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, London, UB8 3PH, UK

    G. E. Derrick

Authors
  1. G. E. Derrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. E. Derrick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Derrick, G.E. Integration versus separation: structure and strategies of the technology transfer office (TTO) in medical research organizations. J Technol Transf 40, 105–122 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9343-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9343-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation