University technology transfer performance in Australia

Abstract

University technology transfer is considered to be an important driver of national innovation and regional economic development. However, previous studies on university technology transfer productivity and efficiency have not evaluated the relative efficiency of Australian universities in technology transfer. In the first study of this thesis, secondary data was used to conduct data envelopment analysis to measure the technical efficiency of Australian universities in producing four technology transfer related outputs, namely the number of invention disclosures, the number of licenses executed, the amount of licensing royalty income and the number of spin-offs created with university equity. Universities were then ranked according to the average technical efficiency scores for producing the four technology transfer related outputs. Subsequently, taking differences between universities in technology transfer efficiency into account; semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 University Technology Transfer Office (UTTO) representatives to identify 12 antecedents of university technology transfer efficiency. The literature on university technology transfer has proposed individual, organisational and environmental determinants to superior university technology transfer performance. However, most of the previous studies on university technology transfer productivity and efficiency have not made a theoretical contribution to the field which might have limited the generalisability of their findings. In the second study of this thesis, the Resource-Based Theory (RBT) was adopted to examine and explain performance differences between universities in technology transfer considering three resource factors, namely the number of ARC Linkage funded projects (financial capital), the number of UTTO staff holding a PhD (human capital) and the joining of a UTTO to a consortium (social capital). Using primary and secondary data, these resource factors were regressed against six university technology transfer performance measures, namely the number of invention disclosures, the number of filed patents, the number of executed licenses, the amount of licensing royalty income, the number of all spin-offs created and the number of spin-offs created with university equity. Empirical findings show that the application of financial, human and social capital matters for technology transfer performance. UTTOs that possess these tangible and intangible resources report higher performance on most of the performance measures applied. Previous studies have not established a relationship between the organisational structure of UTTOs and their performance. In the third study of this thesis, the RBT was adopted to examine and explain performance differences between universities in technology transfer considering four resource factors in relation to the organisational structure of UTTOs; centralisation, specialisation, configurational autonomy and financial dependence. Using primary and secondary data, these resource factors were regressed against six university technology transfer performance measures, namely the number of invention disclosures, the number of filed patents, the number of executed licenses, the amount of licensing royalty income, the number of all spin-offs created and the number of spin-offs created with university equity. Empirical findings show that decentralised UTTOs are superior to centralised UTTOs by all technology transfer performance measures. In relation to specialisation, a positive association was not confirmed for any of the studied technology transfer performance measures. It was also found that highly autonomous UTTOs receive more invention disclosures, file more patents and execute more licenses than non-autonomous UTTOs. Interestingly, it was also found that financially independent UTTOs file fewer patents, execute fewer licenses but receive more licencing royalty income and create more spin-offs with or without university equity than financially dependent UTTOs. Universities’ ability to effectively configure the organisational structures of their UTTOs is indeed valuable in ensuring comparatively higher technology commercialisation performance. It is advisable for universities to adopt autonomous UTTO structures since it would enhance the number of patent filings and licencing agreements whereas maintaining the UTTOs as decentralised and financially independent cost centres would ensure financial sustainability.