Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer

Technovation

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 306-318

  Anderson, Timothy R ^a   Daim, Tugrul U ^a   Lavoie, Francois F ^a  

^a PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Data envelopment analysis; Efficiency; University technology transfer

Indexed keywords

DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; INFORMATION SERVICES; PRODUCTIVITY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICES (TTO); UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

EID: 34247357380     PISSN: 01664972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2006.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Agrawal A., and Henderson R. Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 44-60
2. Beise M., and Stahl H. Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy 28 4 (1999) 397-422
3. Bennet, J., Polkinghorne, M., Pearce, J., 1998. Quantifying the effectiveness of an academia-industry technology transfer initiative in a low prosperity region of the UK. Paper presented at the International Conference on Management of Technology.
4. Berman E.M. The economic impact of industry-funded university R&D. Research Policy 19 4 (1990) 349-355
5. Blumenstyk, G., 2005. Colleges cash in on commercial activity. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A25-A26.
6. Boyle K. Technology transfer between universities and the UK offshore industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 33 1 (1986) 33-42
7. Chapple W., Lockett A., Siegel D., and Wright M. Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy 34 3 (2005) 369-384
8. Charnes A., Cooper W.W., and Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2 6 (1978) 429-444
9. Cohen W.M., Nelson R.R., and Walsh J.P. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 1-23
10. Colyvas J., Crow M., Gelijns A., Mazzoleni R., Nelson R.R., Rosenberg N., et al. How do university inventions get into practice?. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 61-72
11. Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Zhu, J. (Eds.), 2004. Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis. Springer, Dordrecht.
12. Corsten H. Technology transfer from universities to small and medium-sized enterprises-an empirical survey from the standpoint of such enterprises. Technovation 6 1 (1987) 57-68
13. Di Gregorio D., and Shane S. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?. Research Policy 32 2 (2003) 209-227
14. Feldman M., Feller I., Bercovitz J., and Burton R. Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 105-121
15. Feller I., Ailes C.P., and Roessner J.D. Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centers. Research Policy 31 3 (2002) 457-474
16. Geuna A., and Nesta L.J.J. University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence. Research Policy 35 6 (2006) 790-807
17. Goldfarb B., and Henrekson M. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy 32 4 (2003) 639-658
18. Goldhor R.S., and Lund R.T. University-to-industry advanced technology transfer : a case study. Research Policy 12 3 (1983) 121-152
19. Heher A. Return on investment in innovation: implications for institutions and national agencies. The Journal of Technology Transfer 31 4 (2006) 403-414
20. Lee J., and Win H.N. Technology transfer between university research centers and industry in Singapore. Technovation 24 5 (2004) 433-442
21. Leitch C.M., and Harrison R.T. Maximising the potential of university spin-outs: the development of second-order commercialisation activities. R&D Management 35 3 (2005) 257-272
22. Libaers D., Meyer M., and Geuna A. The role of university spinout companies in an emerging technology: the case of nanotechnology. The Journal of Technology Transfer 31 4 (2006) 443-450
23. Lopez W.H. How universities can organize to support industrially relevant research effectively. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 57 3 (1998) 225-228
24. Lopez-Martinez R.E., Medeli E., Scanl P.A., and Solerio J.L. Motivations and obstacles to university industry cooperation: a Mexican case. R&D Management 24 1 (1994) 17-32
25. Lowe R. Who develops a university invention? The impact of tacit knowledge and licensing policies. The Journal of Technology Transfer 31 4 (2006) 415-429
26. Mazzoleni R. The effects of university patenting and licensing on downstream R&D investment and social welfare. The Journal of Technology Transfer 31 4 (2006) 431-441
27. McAdam R., Keogh W., Galbraith B., and Laurie D. Defining and improving technology transfer business and management processes in university innovation centres. Technovation 25 12 (2005) 1418-1429
28. Meyer-Krahmer F., and Schmoch U. Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy 27 8 (1998) 835-851
29. Mowery D.C., Sampat B.N., and Ziedonis A.A. Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of U.S. University Patents after the Bayh-Dole act, 1981-1992. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 73-89
30. Ndonzuau F.N., Pirnay F., and Surlemont B. A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation 22 5 (2002) 281-289
31. Niosi J. Success factors in Canadian academic spin-offs. The Journal of Technology Transfer 31 4 (2006) 451-457
32. Owen-Smith J., Riccaboni M., Pammolli F., and Powell W.W. A comparison of U.S. and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 24-43
33. Perez Perez M., and Sanchez A.M. The development of university spin-offs: early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation 23 10 (2003) 823-831
34. Powers J.B. Commercializing academic research: resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. Journal of Higher Education 74 1 (2003) 26-50
35. Rasmussen E., Moen O., and Gulbrandsen M. Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation 26 4 (2006) 518-533
36. Rogers E.M., Yin Y., and Hoffmann J. Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at U.S. research universities. The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers 12 (2000) 47-80
37. Sampat B.N. Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy 35 6 (2006) 772-789
38. Shane S. Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 122-137
39. Shane S., and Stuart T. Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 154-170
40. Sherman D.H., and Zhu J. Productivity Management: Improving Service Performance Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) (2006), Springer, Boston
41. Siegel, D.S., Phan, P.H., 2004. Analyzing the Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education (No. 0426). Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy.
42. Siegel D.S., Waldman D., and Link A. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy 32 1 (2003) 27-48
43. Siegel D.S., Thursby J.G., Thursby M.C., and Ziedonis A.A. Organizational issues in university-industry technology transfer: an overview of the symposium issue. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26 1 (2004) 5-11
44. Thursby J.G., and Kemp S. University technology transfer: a DEA analysis. In: Kantarelis D. (Ed). Business and Economics for the 21st Century vol. 2 (1998), Business and Economics Society International, Worcester, MA 303-311
45. Thursby J.G., and Kemp S. Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy 31 1 (2002) 109-124
46. Thursby J.G., and Thursby M.C. Who is selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 90-104
47. Thursby, J.G., Thursby, M.C., 2003. University licensing and the Bayh-Dole act. Science 301 (5636), 1052-1052.
48. Thursby J.G., and Thursby M.C. Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy 22 2 (2004) 162-178
49. Thursby J.G., Jensen R., and Thursby M.C. Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26 1 (2001) 59-72
50. Trune D.R., and Goslin L.N. University technology transfer programs: a profit/loss analysis-A preliminary model to measure the economic impact of university licensing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 57 3 (1998) 197-204
51. Tulkens H. On FDH efficiency analysis: some methodological issues and applications to retail banking, courts, and urban transit. Journal of Productivity Analysis 4 (1993) 183-210
52. Zucker L.G., Darby M.R., and Armstrong J.S. Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science 48 1 (2002) 138-153