Best Practices in University Technology Performance by a74QIjce

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 14

									“Research on Academic Entrepreneurship in the U.S. and
   Europe: Lessons Learned and a Research Agenda”




            Professor Donald Siegel
            Dean-School of Business
           University at Albany, SUNY
     President, Technology Transfer Society
     Editor-Journal of Technology Transfer
 Co-Editor-Academy of Management Perspectives
    NSF Engineering Globalization Workshop
                  May 17, 2012
                      Outline
Shameless Self-Promotion: Plugs For Technology
 Transfer Society/Journal of Technology Transfer
Summary of Key Research Quantitative and
  Qualitative Results
 Lessons Learned
 Agenda for Additional Research
Universities, “GPTs”, and The Creation of New Industries
         Technology      (Primary)          Industry
Period Developed         University         Created
         Electronic     University of
1940s Calculator        Pennsylvania      Computers
          Fiber
1960s     Optics           MIT        Telecommunications

                        Stanford,
1970s     rDNA          California     Biotechnology

1980s Supercomputing      Illinois         Internet
      Sequencing of DNA/
       Human Genome      Cal Tech,
1990s    Project      Johns Hopkins Pharmacogenomics
2000s Nanotechnology      UAlbany          ?????
William Baumol-The Free Market Innovation Machine-
      Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism


   Routine/Systematic Innovation-Large Firms
   Entrepreneurial Innovation-Small Firms
   “David and Goliath Symbiosis”-Joint Efforts of
    Individual Entrepreneur and Large Industrial
    Firm  Unprecedented Wealth Creation
   Siegel (2006)-Universities Increasingly Developing
    and Nurturing Startups; Also Linking Small and
    Large Firms Who Engage in Entrepreneurial
    Innovation
   Research on Institutions and Agents Involved in
            Academic Entrepreneurship
               Agents and Institutions
 University Scientists
 Industry Scientists
 Entrepreneurs
 Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers
 University Technology Transfer Offices
 Science Parks
 Incubators/Accelerators
 Firms That Interact With Universities
 Venture Capital Firms
              Selected Research Questions

 How Does the Process of University Technology
  Commercialization/Academic Entrepreneurship Work?
 Which Universities “Perform” Best?
 What is the Role of the TTO?
 How Should We Measure Performance?
 Which Factors “Explain” Variation in Relative
  Performance? (e.g., Incentives, Organizational, and
  Environmental Factors)
 Do Incubators/Accelerators and Science Parks Add
 Value?
 Interdisciplinary Research on Institutions and Agents
        Involved in Academic Entrepreneurship
           Indicators of Output/Performance
 Invention Disclosures
 Patents
 Number of Licensing Agreements
 Licensing Revenue
 Research Productivity of Industry Scientists/Firms
 Research Productivity of University Scientists
 “Productivity” of Universities in Technology Transfer
 Start-Up Formation
 Survival
 Employment Growth
 Changes in Stock Prices
    Key Results for University and Regional Policymakers

 Bayh-Dole Appears to Have Been “Effective”
 TTO Staff Add Significant Value Because Scientists Are
  Not Disclosing Inventions
 Important for TTOs to Help Academics Study University
  Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer
 Private Universities and Those With Medical Schools
   Appear to Be Somewhat More Productive
 Universities Are Becoming More “Strategic” in Technology
  Transfer (More on that later) –More Heterogeneity and
  Application of Management Theories to Practice
Key Results for University and Regional Policymakers (cont.)
 Property-based Institutions (Incubators and Science
   Parks) Appear to Enhance Commercialization
 Incentives Matter (e.g., Royalty Distribution Formulas),
  But So Do Organizational Practices and Institutional
  Policies
 Universities Increasingly Focusing on the Entrepreneurial
  Dimension (Evidence Mixed on Success of University Based
  Startups)
 Academic Entrepreneurs Are Not Less Productive in Their
  Academic Research After Commercialization
 Foreign-Born Scientists Are More Like to Become
  Academic Entrepreneurs
 Social Networks of Star Scientists Key for New Firm
  Creation
       Key Stylized Facts From Qualitative Research
Major Impediments to University Technology Transfer:
 Informational and Cultural Barriers Between
   Universities and Firms (Especially for Small Firms)
 Insufficient Rewards for Faculty Involvement in
  Technology Transfer at Some Institutions, Especially
  w.r.t. Entrepreneurial Activity
 Technology Transfer Office Staffing and Compensation
  Practices (High Rate of Turnover, Insufficient Business/
  Marketing Experience, Possible Need for Incentive
  Compensation)
 Education/Training is Needed for Faculty Members, Post-
  Docs, and Graduate Students in the Specifics of the
  Entrepreneurial Process, the Role of Entrepreneurs, and
  How to Interact with the Business/Entrepreneurial
  Community
Strategic Implications of University Technology Transfer
    /Academic Entrepreneurship-Formulation Issues

 Setting Institutional Goals/Priorities
 Resources Devoted to University Technology Transfer
 Choices Regarding Technological Emphasis
 Strategic Choices Regarding Modes of University
 Technology Transfer:
   Licensing
   Startups
   Sponsored Research
   Other Technology Transfer Mechanisms That are
    Focused More Directly on Stimulating Economic
    Development (e.g., Incubators and Science Parks)
Strategic Implications of University Technology Transfer
  /Academic Entrepreneurship-Implementation Issues
 Improving Information Flows
 Organizational Design/Structure
 HRM Practices-Staffing/Compensation of TTO
  Personnel
 Reward Systems for Faculty Involvement in University
  Technology Transfer (perhaps including P&T- e.g., 6/-
  06-Texas A&M)
 Implementation Issues Regarding Modes of University
  Technology Transfer
   Different Ways of Structuring Licensing Agreements
   Academic vs. Surrogate Entrepreneurs
    Different Ways to Manage University-Based
        Incubators and Science Parks
               Personal Reflections Based on
           Studies of Academic Entrepreneurship

 We Need More Detailed Exploration of the Nature of the
  Connection Between Entrepreneurial Firms and the
  University, Including the Role of Property-Based Institutions
  (i.e., Incubators/Accelerators & Science/Technology Parks
 What is The Relationship Between Academic
  Entrepreneurship and Federal/National Labs (The “Last
  Frontier” of Technology Transfer)
 We Need More Detailed Analysis of Technology Transfer
  Strategy Implementation
                Personal Reflections Based on
       Studies of Academic Entrepreneurship (cont.)
 Strong Need to Enhance Incentives for Faculty Members to
  Be Engaged in Entrepreneurial Activity (and Perhaps For
  Successful Ones to Serve As Mentors)
 Important to Increase Participation/Success of Women &
  Minorities in Academic Entrepreneurship (as we found in
  the NRC Evaluation of SBIR)
 Entrepreneurship Research, Education, and Community-
  Based Initiatives Are Key Complements
 Entrepreneurship As An Academic Field
   Entrepreneurship (2007) vs. Strategy (1989)
   Returns to Studying This Topic Are High (e.g., NSF-
     IGERT, Kauffman, development)

								
To top