Mapping the university technology transfer process

Abstract

Transfer of technologies from the universities to the private sector is increasingly regarded as playing a significant role in new business starts, growth of existing businesses, and new job creation. Further, there are monerous models describing the process of technology transfer. Some of the existing models represent this process as a linear progression of steps: from idea generation and technology development at the university, to patenting the technology and then establishing a university-private firm link through a formal search process. The process culminates in patent rights transfer. Other models describe technology transfer in terms of networking arrangements and emphasize not so much formal search as the role of long-term relationships between the two parties. Still other studies indicate that it is possible to combine the two approaches—formal search and informal networking arrangements—to ensure successful transfer. Business firms involved in transfer also may be classified into several groups. Transfer could occur between the university and an established firm, between the university and a recently created new venture, or transfer could result in the creation of a new company. Technology, for example, could be transferred to a large company that uses the transferred technology as a basis for just one of many product lines, or to a small firm that makes the transferred technology a cornerstone of its product strategy. Are there any differences among the transfer processes used when large or small firms are involved, or when technology is transferred to an existing company, or results in the creation of a new firm? To address these questions, we mapped the technology transfer processes of 23 different technologies developed at the University of Minnesota from 1983 to 1993. More than half of the technologies studied went to large companies and were used either to upgrade existing products or to extend existing product lines. In eight cases technologies were transferred to small firms. In three cases technologies were transferred to venture capital firms or intermediaries and had not been commercialized at the time the study was completed. In the rest of the cases new firms were created by the inventors/university scientists themselves and served as vehicles for marketing their inventions. None of the firms of the latter group have grown beyond a part-time employment opportunity for the inventors, and only one firm provided evidence that additional hiring would be necessary in the near future. Only four cases involved transfers of technologies that have been developed and patented by the university to firms that did not have any relationships with the university prior to the transfer. In these four cases the firms used some form of search strategy to find a needed technology. However, there is no evidence that any of the firms had a well-developed formal search procedure. In the overwhelming majority of cases some form of relationship existed between the university (or individual inventors) and the private firm prior to the transfer. These relationships ranged from long-term friendships and/or cooperation to such less involved forms as interaction at research seminars and university-sponsored events. Further, in four cases, the technologies were initially developed by private companies, whereas the university's role was to assist in refinement or testing of the technology. The research yielded a number of additional findings that deserve further investigation and discussion. Specifically, the study did not provide any evidence that the successfully completed technology transfers made any substantial contribution to either new business creation or the generation of new jobs. This finding suggests that scholars and policy makers should proceed with caution before accepting a notion that new or high technology firms will have any direct economic impact. The study findings hold specific implications for entrepreneurial behavior and public policy. The “formal search and shopping” for a technology model suggests that both business and academic/government laboratories publicize, respectively, their requirements and offerings, and that opportunities for creative brokerage ought to exist. We found that in the majority of cases technology was transferred not through formal search, but through some prior relationships among individuals. This observation suggests that the ability to build extended networks of relationships not only within the business world but also with the university community is an important skill that owners and managers of the technology-based businesses need to possess. Entrepreneurs seeking to start businesses based on new technologies may need to reevaluate how much of their limited time to allocate to build and maintain networks and cooperative relationships, and how much time to shop for new technologies through formal channels. Further, public policy and the efforts of the university transfer agencies intended to facilitate transfer may need to shift their emphasis from facilitating “shopping” by organizing and/or paying for “publicity” (which is currently the major emphasis) to providing assistance in network building and relationship marketing efforts.