The Impact of Industrial Policy on Technology Transfer: Technology Transfer Models in India, Malaysia and Turkey

Technology Transfer Models Between Industrial Biotechnology Companies and Academic Spin-Offs

The transfer of technology from the organizational viewpoint

A conceptual model of technology transfer from university to industry: A meta-analysis approach Shamsodin Nazemi Associate professor, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad Amir Husain Okhravi Student MSc of industrial Management, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad Muhammad Javad Ebrahimi pur Student MSc Master of Industrial Management student, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad Abstract The aim of this paper is to introduce a comprehensive technology transfer model from university to industry. For this purpose a wide range of the most recent research, papers were studied in depth to explore the components of the proposed model. The study showed that although , university, government, and companies of private sector are inevitable components of technology transfer model, academic talents remain the main source of innovation and basis for its commercialization. The study suggests that, pursuing the exploitation of industry's demand for certain technology and specific criteria need to be encountered for the appropriate transfer of technology. This is particularly important in dealing with application, adaption, and promotion of initial technology developed in university. From this study, it can be concluded that a technology transfer office (TTO) can play an important role in facilitating transfer process and is likely to increase the chance of successful commercialization of innovative ideas developed in universities. Key words: University, Technology Transfer Office (TTO), Commercialization, Industry, Model

University technology transfer process is an important task for every university. Traditional technology transfer model identifies general steps needed for successful commercialization and transfer of scientific results developed at universities to the industry while technology transfer offices have a significant role not only in the implementation of university technology transfer process, but also in the overall technology transfer ecosystem. Digitalization and digital technologies impact the university technology transfer process and bring certain changes in the process. In this paper the steps of traditional university technology transfer model are identified and elaborated together with the role of technology transfer offices in the university technology transfer process. The impact of digitalization and implementation of digital technologies in certain aspects of the university technology transfer process is presented.

Universities play pivotal roles when research findings are to be adopted commercially. Although these roles vary from one country to another, effective patenting and licensing procedures, as well as eventual commercialisation of scholarly inventions, reflect hard work on the part of the University mediating between the researcher and the industry through technology transfer offices (TTOs) in order to ensure that knowledge-developers take motivational and monetary credit for their findings. This paper details some existing models, processes, and roles taken up in some countries where sharing of intellectual property exists, and links it up with aspects of university–industry technology transfer, such as policies surrounding patenting, government investment and marketing, and the process of academic entrepreneurship, among others. 22 articles were found via a systematic review of literature and analysed with respect to four identified areas of focus: internal strategy, investment and market, academic entrepreneurship and policy. Based on models, processes, and roles in reviewed studies, our results indicate that new models for technology transfer mainly stem from the fact that there is no universally accepted model in the literature. Furthermore, management of technology transfer is mostly the responsibility of TTOs in most countries. While university TTOs act as intermediaries to protect the interest of the author/inventor, issues such as poor relationships between universities and industry, as well as funding, remain major challenges in many emerging economies. In contrast, researchers in western economies are mainly challenged by financial motivation and recognition within the academic domains.

The objective of this article is to present a successful program that built a National Innovation Network based in the University Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), incubators and science parks.The University Technology Enterprise Network (UTEN), which was launched in March 2007, includes 15 Portuguese Universities and select international partners in a 5-Year program funded by the Portuguese government. The main objective has been to accelerate the development of a sustainable, globally competitive, professional technology transfer and commercialization network within Portugal to increase Portugal’s international competitiveness in university–based science, and technology transfer and commercialization. We argue that all initiatives taken place in the project have gotten UTEN network presently run in the Open Innovation paradigm fostered mostly by the TTOs and their own networks and officers. Science and technology based entrepreneurship was increasingly seen as a key element of Portugal’s ability to grow and prosper (UTEN, 2012). Research universities had worked to foster a range of technology transfer and commercialization activities and offices, together with industrial liaison programs, mostly devoted to fostering entrepreneurial environments, launching technology based start-ups, and bringing ideas from the laboratory to the market. UTEN was created to synergize this growth and stimulate new competencies in international technology transfer and commercialization to facilitate industry access to leading markets worldwide. In other words, UTEN is the living example of an Innovation network - an Open Innovation Network launched to contribute to build the necessary relationships between all actors, giving them the necessary knowledge to play their roles. This working paper shows the actions taken to construct UTEN and improve the Portuguese Innovation Ecosystem. These actions follows the patterns observed in other studies – essentially those ones from Resende et al, 2013; McAdam et al., 2012; Philpott et al., 2011; Todorovic et al., 2011; Rogers, 2002; Rogers et al., 2001; Rogers et al., 2000 and Gibson and Rogers, 1994.We have collected data that shows the success of the program based on the results of the first five years of the project.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse potentially significant factors in a series of relevant characteristics of universities’ technology transfer offices (TTOs). Previous studies stated that TTO plays an important role in shaping the direction of technology transfer growth in Research Universities (RUs) and could increase the economic growth. However, the success rate of commercialization in RUs innovations are low when compared to start-ups/spinoffs companies against the Intellectual Properties Rights (IPR) produced. Therefore, there is a need to enhance the role of TTO in RUs to enable successful technology transfer. This study conducts a systematic literature review synthesis to identify role and responsibilities of TTO in the process of commercialization, determine critical factors for enabling successful technology transfer and understanding RUs innovation ecosystem for enhancing successful technology transfer. The results provide evidence that TTO which has appropriate institutional structure with entrepreneurial activities could facilitate development of academic entrepreneurship roles thereby motivating successful RUs technology transfer. These results are expected to improve the successful commercialization rate of universities inventions in consistent with the regional economic growth in Malaysia. Future studies are recommended to include development of a framework for nurturing strategic entrepreneurship within TTO to enhance commercialization of innovation through RUs technology transfer.

All of Africa’s emerging economies are faced with developmental challenges, which can be partly ameliorated using effective University–Industry technology transfer. While technology transfer remains at the infant stage, sparsely documented, and with no complex ongoing processes in many African societies, Universities in Africa are making efforts in University–Industry collaborations aimed at bringing significant improvements to the continent in a bid to drive national innovation and regional economic development. In this paper, we attempt to evaluate the progress made so far by Nigerian Universities in technological innovation transfer, in order to suggest ways for possible future progress. To do this, crucial technology transfer resource factors (inputs), namely, the number of linkage projects funded by the “African Research Council” (ARC), consortium membership of the University’s technology transfer office, and the number of doctoral staff at the University’s technology transfer office, were checked against a set of performance measures (number of executed licenses, amount of licensing royalty income, number of spin-offs created, and the number of spin-offs created with university equity), using data envelopment analysis and multiple regression, respectively. Results suggest that Universities that possess better resource factors reported higher outputs on most of the performance indicators applied. In addition, it was observed that Universities with greater ability to effectively transfer knowledge had higher technology commercialization performance and financial sustainability. The implication of these results is that Universities in Africa need to develop in line with the technology transfer resource (input) factors suggested within this study, as this is the way to go for better performance.

In addition to the more traditional mandates of teaching and research, universities have recently amplified their missions to become increasingly entrepreneurial (Siegel 2006). Academic entrepreneurship encompasses all the activities through which universities fulfil their ‘third mission’ (economic development): patenting, licensing, creating spin-offs, investing equity in start-ups, creating technology transfer offices (TTOs), incubators and science parks (Rothaermel et al. 2007). Within the broad field of university entrepreneurship, the analysis of the commercialization processes by technology transfer offices, usually the formal gateway between university and industry, focuses on the different mechanisms through which academic research and intellectual property (IP) is capitalized and commercially exploited. The topic of TTO productivity has been quite largely studied (Rothaermel et al. 2007). Prior research, in the attempt to identify the key determinants of technology transfer (TT) success, has mainly focused on the characteristics of inventions, such as patent protection and scope (e.g., Nerkar and Shane 2007; Shane 2002). Studies such as Hsu and Bernstein (1997), Chapple et al. (2005) and Thursby and Thursby (2002), however, have shown that the value of technologies is a not sufficient driver of TT success, as many worthy IP rights remain unlicensed. Indeed, due to high transaction costs characterizing the markets for technologies (Gambardella et al. 2007), only a minority of university inventions are transferred to the industry (Di Gregorio and Shane 2003). There is indeed a need to expand the search for performance determinants to other classes of factors (Rothaermel et al. 2007). Specifically, this chapter focuses on the management and organization of TT activities as key levers to overcome market failure and increase the productivity of TTOs. The study of these aspects is particularly critical because of the complexity of technology commercialization process, which occurs in conditions of high uncertainty. The embryonic and idiosyncratic nature of academic research makes it difficult to assess its commercialization potential (Ziedonis 2007). Also, the diversity of tasks involved in the TT process requires a broad range of competencies (Geuna and Muscio 2009), that is, technical, marketing, legal and proper organizational mechanisms to integrate such knowledge. The complexity of TT activities is reflected in the substantial heterogeneity of performance among the various universities (e.g., Chapple et al. 2005; Markman et al. 2005). By tackling the following research question, ‘How do different managerial and organizational approaches to technology transfer relate to different levels of performance?’, this chapter examines TT management and organization from a comprehensive standpoint. Adopting the dynamic capabilities perspective (Teece 2007) as theoretical lens, the chapter develops an interpretative framework, which aims to identify the managerial antecedents underlying superior capabilities in commercializing academic research. The model is then illustrated through the case of two Italian universities’ TTOs, which have been active in TT for many years with very different degree of success. This work contributes to the literature on university TT in several ways. Firstly, the use of qualitative research is quite original – quantitative empirical research based on survey and patent data tend to dominate this literature – and allows an in-depth illustration of the technology transfer process as a whole. Secondly, the comprehensive description of technology transfer microfoundations is particularly relevant both theoretically, to grasp the underlying mechanisms and process dynamics of TT, and practically, to ascertain implications for the commercialization of academic knowledge. The literature on university TT is gaining in importance in entrepreneurship and management research; a growing community of scholars is collecting extensive evidence, especially on transfer performance and efficiency, but most research has an anecdotal and practice-oriented nature. Few papers adopt well-defined theoretical frameworks to explain transfer dynamics, thus robustly contributing to the debate. Following recent calls for an investigation of capabilities and skills as organizational dimensions of TTOs (e.g., Chapple et al. 2005), this chapter is, to our best knowledge, among the first research work that adopts the dynamic capabilities approach to interpret the phenomenon of TT and to analyze its dynamics. Lastly, being our work based on a European Union (EU)-funded project, we follow Conti and Gaule (2011) who call for more investigation on the specificities of practices and performance of TTOs at the European level. The chapter is structured as follows. The next sections develop the theoretical framework, review the existing literature and describe the methodology employed. This is followed by a section reporting and discussing the findings from the case studies. Finally, conclusions are drawn and some avenues for future research are outlined.

Technology transfer offices (TTOs) play an important role in innovation ecosystems. There is a global strive to make these offices more efficient and improve their performance. This study aims to reason the key factors influencing the performance of TTOs at the members of the European Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU). To reach this aim, the comparative literature review of the factors influencing the performance of the TTOs was performed first. The survey along with the semi-structured interviews interviewing leaders of the TTOs with the aim to validate the relevance of the factors was conducted afterwards. The discussion on the key factors influencing the performance of TTOs at ECIU members is presented at the end of the study. The study reveals the following as the key factors influencing the performance of TTOs at the ECIU network: i) TTO strategy; ii) relationships with investors; iii) networking; iv) functioning of a special TTO unit dedicated to working with industry; and v) business experience of TTO staff. It also brings an extension to the technology transfer literature by discussing organizational issues of technology transfer in the European context. The study reveals that the key factors influencing the performance of TTOs at ECIU members are quite similar regardless of the age of TTOs or the country of operation.

The present paper is devoted to analyze the appropriate recommendations to increase the effectiveness of technology transfer centers from Romanian National Network for Innovation and Technology Transfer - ReNITT, hosted by universities. The study is focused on the definition of a conceptual frame to develop specific business models, by the specialized compartments from technology/knowledge transfer entities, and using the specific instruments of business modeling process. The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the 8 steps scheduling of pairing the building blocks of the Business Models Canvas, corresponding to the specific technology transfer models, and taking into account the elements of the value chain of technology transfer and making connections with technology readiness level, allows a clarification of this relative “fuzzy” and complicated modeling process of university’s Technology Transfer Offices activities, gathering in a concentrated format all necessary information. According to their mission, objectives and strategies, universities decide upon a certain business model for the Technology Transfer Offices, adaptable to client segment and value proposition to attain, by the offered services portfolio. In conclusion, during their activities, Technology Transfer Offices identify, validate and exploit the opportunities originated from applicative research results, by “technology push” methods. Also, there are necessary specific competences (human and material) to develop externally aware business models starting from real needs of the clients, by “market pull” techniques, that would contribute to enhance the endogenous innovation potential of firms.

To improve university and commercial ties with industry, many universities operate a technology transfer office (TTO) as a vehicle to support the creation of spin-off companies. Run effectively, the TTO can define roles and responsibilities, structures and processes that support the creation and development of new ventures. The challenge for universities is to create TTOs with the right skill set. This paper aims to analyze the TTO activities to support transforming research outputs into commercialization in the context of the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine from Cluj-Napoca, Romania (UASVMCN). Throughout this paper, different commercialization channels, the roles of technology transfer offices and multiple associative structures are further discussed with a special focus on agricultural open innovations and technologies. This study contributes to sustainable development of both Academia and agricultural Industry research, development and commercialization activities by illustrating current innovation and technology transfer activities produced by UASVMCN and its own TTO as a catalyst entity, a new model in Romania, so that the Academia-TTO-Economy partners association draw a functional and productive triple helix. In order to assess the sustainability of using the above-mentioned TTO, the methodological tools involving analysis are implemented. Finally, this paper states that correct operating of a university TTO is a real opportunity for technology transfer, both from the perspective of an alternative to research funding or entrepreneurship, and from the cultural perspective of the university correlation to the current trends in research, innovation and technology transfer, on a unique and entrepreneurial European market.

Industry engagement and the application of universities’ research outcomes for shaping society to achieve a habitable environment are possible as a result of technology transfer. With reference to universities in the Czech Republic, this paper proposes a model of effective knowledge management for intellectual property created by university employees according to the structure of individual faculties and their main research focus. The ultimate goal is to achieve effective technology transfer through knowledge management. A review of previous technology transfer models, such as appropriability, dissemination, knowledge utilization, communication, use of a university technology transfer office, and the Triple Helix, shows that these models cannot effectively transfer technology individually but can do so in combination at different levels. Consequently, a knowledge management model is introduced in this study for the transfer of technology from universities. The introduction of technology transfer offices (TTOs) is expected to protect intellectual property, generate new knowledge and create access to valuable knowledge, among other benefits.

Examining different technology transfer capabilities and their counterpart works from two different positions

In addition to the more traditional mandates of teaching and research, universities have recently amplified their missions to become increasingly entrepreneurial (Siegel 2006). Academic entrepreneurship encompasses all the activities through which universities fulfil their ‘third mission’ (economic development): patenting, licensing, creating spin-offs, investing equity in start-ups, creating technology transfer offices (TTOs), incubators and science parks (Rothaermel et al. 2007). Within the broad field of university entrepreneurship, the analysis of the commercialization processes by technology transfer offices, usually the formal gateway between university and industry, focuses on the different mechanisms through which academic research and intellectual property (IP) is capitalized and commercially exploited. The topic of TTO productivity has been quite largely studied (Rothaermel et al. 2007). Prior research, in the attempt to identify the key determinants of technology transfer (TT) success, has mainly focused on the characteristics of inventions, such as patent protection and scope (e.g., Nerkar and Shane 2007; Shane 2002). Studies such as Hsu and Bernstein (1997), Chapple et al. (2005) and Thursby and Thursby (2002), however, have shown that the value of technologies is a not sufficient driver of TT success, as many worthy IP rights remain unlicensed. Indeed, due to high transaction costs characterizing the markets for technologies (Gambardella et al. 2007), only a minority of university inventions are transferred to the industry (Di Gregorio and Shane 2003). There is indeed a need to expand the search for performance determinants to other classes of factors (Rothaermel et al. 2007). Specifically, this chapter focuses on the management and organization of TT activities as key levers to overcome market failure and increase the productivity of TTOs. The study of these aspects is particularly critical because of the complexity of technology commercialization process, which occurs in conditions of high uncertainty. The embryonic and idiosyncratic nature of academic research makes it difficult to assess its commercialization potential (Ziedonis 2007). Also, the diversity of tasks involved in the TT process requires a broad range of competencies (Geuna and Muscio 2009), that is, technical, marketing, legal and proper organizational mechanisms to integrate such knowledge. The complexity of TT activities is reflected in the substantial heterogeneity of performance among the various universities (e.g., Chapple et al. 2005; Markman et al. 2005). By tackling the following research question, ‘How do different managerial and organizational approaches to technology transfer relate to different levels of performance?’, this chapter examines TT management and organization from a comprehensive standpoint. Adopting the dynamic capabilities perspective (Teece 2007) as theoretical lens, the chapter develops an interpretative framework, which aims to identify the managerial antecedents underlying superior capabilities in commercializing academic research. The model is then illustrated through the case of two Italian universities’ TTOs, which have been active in TT for many years with very different degree of success. This work contributes to the literature on university TT in several ways. Firstly, the use of qualitative research is quite original – quantitative empirical research based on survey and patent data tend to dominate this literature – and allows an in-depth illustration of the technology transfer process as a whole. Secondly, the comprehensive description of technology transfer microfoundations is particularly relevant both theoretically, to grasp the underlying mechanisms and process dynamics of TT, and practically, to ascertain implications for the commercialization of academic knowledge. The literature on university TT is gaining in importance in entrepreneurship and management research; a growing community of scholars is collecting extensive evidence, especially on transfer performance and efficiency, but most research has an anecdotal and practice-oriented nature. Few papers adopt well-defined theoretical frameworks to explain transfer dynamics, thus robustly contributing to the debate. Following recent calls for an investigation of capabilities and skills as organizational dimensions of TTOs (e.g., Chapple et al. 2005), this chapter is, to our best knowledge, among the first research work that adopts the dynamic capabilities approach to interpret the phenomenon of TT and to analyze its dynamics. Lastly, being our work based on a European Union (EU)-funded project, we follow Conti and Gaule (2011) who call for more investigation on the specificities of practices and performance of TTOs at the European level. The chapter is structured as follows. The next sections develop the theoretical framework, review the existing literature and describe the methodology employed. This is followed by a section reporting and discussing the findings from the case studies. Finally, conclusions are drawn and some avenues for future research are outlined.