Monitoring the performance of university technology transfer offices: the bias control.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.32.1117Abstract
Education is the main activity for universities but the innovations resulting from their research become more and more a prominent and very lucrative business for them.
University research and its transfer to industry has been a topic of interest in the management of technology literature over decades and several researchers focused the performances of university TTOs and many metrics have been proposed during last years .
The primary role of a TTO is to manage and perform technology transfer activities (AUTM 2004), but how to control and monitoring the performance of university TTOs?
In literature there are many studies regarding this theme, but many of these focused on the analysis of the driving forces of TTO performances that may help policy makers and university managers to improve technology transfer process (Hulsbeck et al., 2013), while in this paper, the approach to this theme regards the use of operative tools to control and monitoring the performance of university TTOs. TT managers oriented to use statistical tools, as a control chart, here proposed, to do this, face with an operative problem related the small samples of TT available data that can generate bias of the process only owned to this condition and not as a consequence of a bias really occurred.
In this paper, to overcome this problem, opportune graphs and tables, can be used by TT managers, are proposed to determine a reasonable number of subgroups of available TT data, for constructing suitable control limits. Hulsbeck et al., (2013) used the number of invention disclosures as a performance measure, to analyze how variance in performance can be explained by different organizational structures and variables of TTO. In this paper we refer to the same performance measure to be monitored.
This proposed model and solution may be appealing to managers and technology transfer agents since the graphs and tables proposed could be reproduced in a number of standard optimization software.
References
Agrawal, A., Henderson, R., (2002). Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48 (1), 44–60.
Anderson T., Daim T. , Lavoie F (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27, 306-318.
AUTM, AUTM 2011 (2012). Licensing Activity Surveys. Association of University Technology Managers, Deerfield, IL 60015, USA (www.autm.net/Home.htm).
Baldini, N. (2006). University patenting and licensing activity: A review of the literature. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 197–207.
Beise, M., Stahl, H., (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy, 28 (4), 397–422.
Bennet, J., Polkinghorne, M., Pearce, J., (1998). Quantifying the effectiveness of an academia-industry technology transfer initiative in a low prosperity region of the UK. Paper presented at the International Conference on Management of Technology.
Berman, E.M., (1990). The economic impact of industry-funded university R&D. Research Policy, 19 (4), 349–355.
Boyle, K., (1986). Technology transfer between universities and the UK offshore industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 33 (1), 33–42.
Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A.-C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1–2), 199–232.
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.
Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., Walsh, J.P., (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48 (1), 1–23.
Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R.R., Rosenberg, N., et al., (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48 (1), 61–72.
Corsten, H., 1987. Technology transfer from universities to small and medium-sized enterprises—an empirical survey from the standpoint of such enterprises. Technovation 6 (1), 57–68.
De Falco S. (2012) Is it possible to control and optimize technology transfer process? Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1:6.
Del Castillo E., Run Length Distributions and Economic Design of X Charts with Unknown Process Variance, Metrika, 43 (1996), pp. 189-201.
di Gregorio, D., Shane, S., (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32 (2), 209–227.
Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., Burton, R., (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48 (1), 105–121.
Feller, I., Ailes, C.P., Roessner, J.D., (2002). Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centers. Research Policy, 31 (3), 457–474.
Geuna, A., Nesta, L.J.J., 2006. University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35 (6), 790–807.
Ghosh B.K., Reynolds M.R., Van Hui Y. (1981). Shewhart X -Charts with Estimated Process Variance.Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods, 18, pp. 1797-1822.
Goldfarb, B., Henrekson, M., (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32 (4), 639–658.
Goldhor, R.S., Lund, R.T., (1983). University-to-industry advanced technology transfer : a case study. Research Policy, 12 (3), 121–152.
Heher, A., (2006). Return on investment in innovation: implications for institutions and national agencies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31 (4), 403–414.
Hillier F.S. (1964),. X Chart Control Limits Based on a Small Number of Subgroups, Industrial Quality Control, 20 pp. 24-29.
Hulsbeck, M., Lehmann E., Starnecker A. (2013). Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 199-215
Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.
Lee, J., Win, H.N., 2004. Technology transfer between university research centers and industry in Singapore. Technovation, 24 (5), 433–442.
Leitch, C.M., Harrison, R.T., (2005). Maximising the potential of university spin-outs: the development of second-order commercialisation activities. R&D Management, 35 (3), 257–272.
Leitch, C.M., Harrison, R.T., 2005. Maximising the potential of university spin-outs: the development of second-order commercialisation activities. R&D Management, 35 (3), 257–272.
Lopez, W.H., 1998. How universities can organize to support industrially relevant research effectively. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 57 (3), 225–228.
Lopez-Martinez, R.E., Medeli, E., Scanl, P.A., Solerio, J.L., 1994. Motivations and obstacles to university industry cooperation: a Mexican case. R&D Management, 24 (1), 17–32.
Lowe, R., (2006). Who develops a university invention? The impact of tacit knowledge and licensing policies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31 (4), 415–429.
Lowe, R., 2006. Who develops a university invention? The impact of tacit knowledge and licensing policies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31 (4), 415–429.
Mazzoleni, R., 2006. The effects of university patenting and licensing on downstream R&D investment and social welfare. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31 (4), 431–441.
McAdam, R., Keogh, W., Galbraith, B., Laurie, D., (2005). Defining and improving technology transfer business and management processes in university innovation centres. Technovation, 25 (12), 1418–1429.
Meyer-Krahmer, F., Schmoch, U., (1998). Science-based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27 (8), 835–851.
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.
Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., Powell, W.W., (2002). A comparison of U.S. and European university–industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48 (1), 24–43.
Quesenberry C.P. (1993), The Effect of Sample Size on Estimated Limits for X and X Control Charts, Journal of Quality Technology, 25 , pp. 237-247.
Rasmussen, E., Moen, O., Gulbrandsen, M., (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26 (4), 518–533.
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.
Sampat, B.N., 2006. Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after Bayh–Dole. Research Policy, 35 (6), 772–789.
Shane, S., 2002. Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48 (1), 122–137.
Shane, S., Stuart, T., (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48 (1), 154–170.
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 (1), 5–11.
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.
Thursby, J. G., & Thrusby, M. C. (2007). University licensing. Oxford. Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 620–639.
Thursby, J.G., Kemp, S., (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31 (1), 109–124.
Trietsch D. & Bischak D. (2007) The Rate of Signals for Control Charts with Limits Estimated from Small Samples. Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 39 No.1QICID: 20878, pp. 54-65
Trune, D.R., Goslin, L.N., (1998). University technology transfer programs: a profit/loss analysis—A preliminary model to measure the economic impact of university licensing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 57 (3), 197–204.
Tseng, A. A., Raudensky, M. (2015). Performances of technology transfer activities of US universities after Bayh-Dole Act. J. Economics, Business & Management, 3(6), 661-667,
Vinig T. & Lips D. (2015) Measuring the performance of university technology transfer using meta data approach: the case of Dutch universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, open access.
Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Armstrong, J.S., (2002). Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48 (1), 138–153.
