Performance Assessments of Technology Transfer Offices of Thirty Major US Research Universities in 2012/2013
AbstractThe activities and performance of thirty major universities technology transfer offices (TTOs) selected from major US universities are quantitatively assessed and compared. Six leading metrics, including TTOs’ revenue, as well as quantity of invention disclosures, patent applications, patents granted, licenses signed, and startup companies launched, are used to develop a single overall performance metric (OPM) for representing the performance of the TTOs. The OPM are then evaluated for each of the thirty universities and their OPM scores are compared to each other to establish the reliability and effectiveness of a comprehensive OPM. A patenting control ratio (PCR) is also calculated to guide a TTO in setting its patenting strategy and procedures. These two metrics should be able to provide a comprehensive overview of how good is the TTO of a university as compare to those of its peers and, even more importantly, how the program fares globally.
J. W. Kendrick, “International comparisons of productivity trends and levels,” Atlantic Economic Journal, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 42-54, 1990.
A. Hornstein and P. Krusell, “Can technology improvements cause productivity slowdowns?” in NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1996, vol. 11, pp. 209-276, 1996.
A. Stevens, “The enactment of Bayh–Dole,” Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 29, pp. 93-99, 2004.
D. C. Mowery, R. R. Nelson, B. N. Sampat, and A. A. Ziedonis, Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-dole act. Stanford University Press, Redwood City, CA, 2004.
T. R. Anderson, T. U. Daim, and F. F. Lavoie, “Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer,” Technovation, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 306-318, May 2007.
G. D. Markman, P. T. Gianiodis, P. H. Phan, and D. B. Balkin, “Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market,” Research Policy, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1058-1075, Sept. 2005.
A. A. Tseng and M. Raudensky, “Performances of technology transfer activities of US universities after Bayh-Dole Act,” Journal of Economics, Business and Management, vol. 3, no. 6, pp, 661-667, June 2015.
D. B. Resnik, “DNA patents and human dignity,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 152-165, 2001.
K. Hoeyer, “The ethics of research biobanking: a critical review of the literature,” Biotechnology & Genetic Engineering Reviews, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 429-452, 2008.
J. E. Cohen, M. A. Lemley, “Patent scope and innovation in the software industry,” California Law Review, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 1-57, 2001.
A. D. Heher, “Return on investment in innovation: Implications for institutions and national agencies,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 403-414, July 2006.
J. Kim and T. U. Daim, “A new approach to measuring time-lags in technology licensing: study of U.S. academic research institutions,” J. Tech. Trans., in press.
USGPO, Rights to inventions made by nonprofit organizations and small business firms under government grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements, Part 401, in Title 37: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2013.
COGR, A Tutorial on Technology Transfer in U.S. Colleges and Universities, Council on Governmental Relations, Washington, D.C., 2011.
FY2011 Licensing Activity Survey, Association of University Technology Managers, http://www.autm.net/FY_2011_Licensing_Activity_Survey/9140.htm, Dec. 10, 2012.
FY2012, Licensing Activity Survey, Association of University Technology Managers, USA, 2013.
I. Abrams, G. Leung, and A. J. Stevens, “How are U.S. technology transfer offices tasked and motivated- is it all about the
money?” Research Management Review, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1-34, Fall/Winter 2009.
IRS, “Tax-exempt status for your organization,” Section 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, Publication 557, Cat. No 46573C, U.S. Internal Revenue Service, pp. 65-66, Oct. 2013.
J. L. Fox, “America invents act receives cautious welcome,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 29, pp. 953-954, 2011.
J. L. Nesheim, High tech start up, revised and updated: The complete handbook for creating successful new high tech companies. New York, the Free Press, 2000.
E. M. Rogers, Y. Jing, H. Joern, “Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer office at U.S. research universities,” The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, vol. 12, pp. 47-80, 2000.
T. Huang, Y. Ken, W. C. Wang, C. H. Wu, and S. H. Shiu, “Assessing the relative performance of U.S. university technology transfer: non-parametric evidence,” Wseas Transactions on Business and Economics, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 79-109, 2011.
M. Thursby, J. Thursby, and S. G. Mukherjee, “Are there real effects of licensing on academic research? A life cycle view,” Journal Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 63, pp. 577-598, 2007.
A. S. York and M. J. Ahn, “University technology transfer office success factors: a comparative case study,” International Journal of Technology Transfer & Commercialisation, vol. 11, no. 1-2, pp. 26-50, 2012.
D. R. Trune and L. N. Goslin, “University technology transfer program: a profit/loss analysis,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 197-204, Mar. 1998.
J. G. Thursby and M. C. Thursby, “Industry/university licensing: characteristics, concerns and issues from the perspective
of the buyer,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 28, no. 3-4, pp. 207-213, 2003.
R. E. Litan, L. Mitchell, and E. J. Reedy, “Commercializing university innovations: Alternative approaches,” Social Science Research Network, Issues in Science and Technology, May 2007.
D. Roessner, J. Bond, S. Okubo, and M. Planting, “The economic impact of licensed commercialized inventions originating in university research, 1996–2007,” Final Report to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Washington, D.C., Sept, 2009.
Z. Xu, M. E. Parry, and M. Song, “The impact of technology transfer office characteristics on university invention disclosure,” IEEE Trans. Engineering Management, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 212-227, May 2011.
J. Foltz, B. Barham, and K. Kim, “University and agricultural biotechnology patent production,” Agribusiness, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 82-95, 2000.
R. P. O'Shea, T. J. Allen, A. Chevalier, and F. Roche, “Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff
performance of U.S. universities, research policy,” vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 994-1009, Sept. 2005.
D. M. West, “Improving university technology transfer and commercialization,” Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings, no. 20, pp. 1-15, Dec. 5, 2012.
M. Kurman, “An index-based measure of university technology transfer,” International Journal of Innovation Science, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 167-176, 2011.
R. Britt, Universities Report Highest-Ever R&D Spending of $65 Billion in FY 2011, Rep. No. NSF 13-305, US National Science Foundation, Nov. 2012.
Carnegie Foundation, RU/VH: Research Universities, classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/basic.php Oct.
A. A. Tseng, M. Raudensky, and B. Li, “Impingement flux uniformity in nozzle spraying for industrial applications,” Atomization & Sprays, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 819-840, 2013.
G. D. Markman, P. H. Phan, D. B. Balkin, and P. T. Gianiodis, “Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter?” The Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 29, no. 3-4, pp. 353-364, Aug. 2004.
L. M. Krieger, “UC and Stanford Rank high in Earnings from Business Spinoffs,” www.mercurynews.com/ci_19451964, Dec. 2, 2011.
PowerPoint files provided by Katherine Ku, Director of Stanford University’s Office of Technology Licensing, Nov. 2013.
Copyright (c) 2016 International Journal of Engineering and Technology Innovation
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Submission of a manuscript implies: that the work described has not been published before that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; that if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication. Authors can retain copyright in their articles with no restrictions. Also, author can post the final, peer-reviewed manuscript version (postprint) to any repository or website.
Since Jan. 01, 2019, IJETI will publish new articles with Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.
The Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial (CC-BY-NC) License permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.