University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all

Technovation

Volumn 76-77, Issue , 2018, Pages 51-63

  Baglieri, Daniela ^a   Baldi, Francesco ^b,c   Tucci, Christopher L ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MESSINA   (Italy)

^b LUISS UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^d EPFL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Business models; Entrepreneurial university; Technology transfer

Indexed keywords

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

BUSINESS MODELING; BUSINESS MODELS; ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE; ENTREPRENEURIAL UNIVERSITY; EVALUATION PROGRAM; HIGH-QUALITY RESEARCH; QUALITATIVE DATA; UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER OFFICES;

PLANT STARTUP;

EID: 85048703622     PISSN: 01664972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2018.05.003     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Afuah, A., Tucci, C.L., Business Models & Strategies, Text & Cases. 2003, McGraw-Hill, New York.
2. Afuah, A., Tucci, C.L., Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Acad. Mgmt. Rev. 37:3 (2012), 355–375.
3. Anderson, T.R., Daim, T.U., Lavoie, F.F., Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation 27:5 (2007), 306–318.
4. Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., Gambardella, A., Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Ind. Corp. Change 10:2 (2001), 419–451.
5. Audretsch, D., Entrepreneurship research. Manag. Decis. 50:5 (2012), 755–764.
6. AUTM, 2012. U.S. Licensing Activity Survey, Report. Available at: 〈https://www.autm.net/source〉.
7. Aversa, P., Furnari, S., Haefliger, S., Business model configurations and performance: a qualitative comparative analysis in Formula One racing, 2005–2013. Ind. Corp. Change 24:3 (2015), 655–676.
8. Baden-Fuller, C., Haefliger, S., Business models and technological innovation. Long. Range Plan. 46:6 (2013), 419–426.
9. Baden-Fuller, C., Mangematin, V., Business models: a challenging agenda. Strateg. Organ. 11:4 (2013), 418–427.
10. Baglieri, D., Coopetitive strategies for knowledge creation: managing university-industry relationship in biotechnology‖. Dagnino, G.B., Rocco, E., (eds.) Coopetition Strategy, Theory, Experiments and Cases, 2009, Routledge, London.
11. Baglieri, D., Lorenzoni, G., Closing the distance between academia and market: experimentation and user entrepreneurial processes. J. Technol. Transf. 39:1 (2014), 52–74.
12. Beckman, C.M., Burton, M.D., Founding the future: path dependence in the evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Org. Sci. 19:1 (2008), 3–24.
13. Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. J. Technol. Transf. 31:1 (2006), 175–188.
14. Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level. Organ. Sci. 19:1 (2008), 69–89.
15. Bozeman, B., Rimes, H., Youtie, J., The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Res. Policy 44:1 (2015), 34–49.
16. Butticè V., Franzoni, C., Rossi-Lamastra, C., Rovelli, P., The road to crowdfunding success: a review of the extant literature. Tucci, C.L., Afuah, A., Viscusi, G., (eds.) Creating and Capturing Value from Crowdsourcing, 2018, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
17. Cappelli, P., The future of the US business model and the rise of competitors. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 23:2 (2009), 5–10.
18. Cardozo, R., Ardichvili, A., Strauss, A., Effectiveness of university technology transfer: an organizational population ecology view of a maturing supplier industry. J. Technol. Transf. 36:2 (2011), 173–202.
19. Cesaroni, F., Piccaluga, A., The activities of university knowledge transfer offices: towards the third mission in Italy. J. Technol. Transf. 41:4 (2015), 753–777.
20. Chesbrough, H., The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. Calif. Manag. Rev. 45:3 (2003), 33–58.
21. Cunningham, J., O'Reilly, P., O'Kane, C., Mangematin, V., The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. J. Technol. Transf. 39:1 (2014), 93–110.
22. Dasgupta, P., David, P.A., Toward a new economics of science. Res. Policy 23 (1994), 487–521.
23. Degroof, J.J., Roberts, E.B., Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. J. Technol. Transf. 29:3–4 (2004), 327–352.
24. Di Gregorio, D., Shane, S., Why do some universities generate more startups than others?. Res. Policy 32:2 (2003), 209–227.
25. Dottore, A.G., Baaken, T., Corkindale, D., A partnering business model for technology transfer: the case of the Muenster University of Applied Sciences. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 12:2 (2010), 190–216.
26. Drucker, J., Goldstein, H., Assessing the regional economic development impacts of universities: a review of current approaches. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 30:1 (2007), 20–46.
27. Edmondson, A.C., McManus, S.E., Methodological fit in management field research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32:4 (2007), 1246–1264.
28. Eisenhardt, K.M., Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14:4 (1989), 532–550.
29. Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50:1 (2007), 25–32.
30. Etzkowitz, H., Dzisah, J., Professors of practice and the entrepreneurial university. Int. High. Educ. 49 (2015), 10–11 〈http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/download/7989/7140〉.
31. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res. Policy 29:2 (2000), 109–123.
32. Faucher-King, F., The “Modernization” of the labour party, 1994–2007: the successes and difficulties of importing the business model in politics. Politix, 21(81), 2008 (125-+).
33. Feldman, M., The Locational Dynamics of the Us Biotech Industry: Knowledge Externalities and the Anchor Hypothesis. in Research and Technological Innovation. 2005, Physica-Verlag HD, Heidelberg, 201–224.
34. Feldman, M., Desrochers, P., Research Universities and local economic development: lessons from the history of the Johns Hopkins University. Ind. Innov. 10:1 (2003), 5–24.
35. Feldman, M.P., Entrepreneurship and American research universities: evolution in technology transfer. Émerg. Entrep. Policy.: Gov. Startups Growth US Knowl. Econ., 2003, 92–112.
36. Frechtling, J.A., Logic Modeling Methods in Program Evaluation, 5, 2007, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
37. Friedman, J., Silberman, J., University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter?. J. Technol. Transf. 28:1 (2003), 17–30.
38. Goldstein, H., Excellence in Problem-oriented Policing. 1990, McGraw-Hill, New York NY.
39. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D.S., Wright, M., 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Res. Policy 40:8 (2011), 1045–1057.
40. Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., The development of an entrepreneurial university. J. Technol. Transf. 37:1 (2012), 43–74.
41. Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J.A., Urbano, D., Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: an exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Res. Policy 44:3 (2015), 748–764.
42. Harrison, R.T., Leitch, C., Voodoo institution or entrepreneurial university? Spin-off companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the UK. Reg. Stud. 44:9 (2010), 1241–1262.
43. Heisey, P.W., Adelman, S.W., Research expenditures, technology transfer activity, and university licensing revenue. J. Technol. Transf. 36:1 (2011), 38–60.
44. Heller, M.A., Eisenberg, R.S., Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280:5364 (1998), 698–701.
45. Henkel, J., Selective revealing in open innovation processes: the case of embedded Linux. Res. Policy 35:7 (2006), 953–969.
46. Hoffmann, W.H., Schlosser, R., Success factors of strategic alliances in small and medium-sized enterprises—an empirical survey. Long Range Plan. 34:3 (2001), 357–381.
47. Jain, S., George, G., Maltarich, M., Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Res. Policy 38:6 (2009), 922–935.
48. Karlan, D., Valdivia, M., Teaching entrepreneurship: impact of business training on microfinance clients and institutions. Rev. Econ. Stat. 93:2 (2011), 510–527.
49. Kelle, U., “Emergence” vs.”forcing” of empirical data? A crucial problem of” grounded Theory” reconsidered. Hist. Social. Res./Hist. Soz. Supplement (2007), S133–S156.
50. Kim, Y.K., Lee, K., Park, W.G., Choo, K., Appropriate intellectual property protection and economic growth in countries at different levels of development. Res. Policy 41:2 (2012), 358–375.
51. Lawson, C., Academic inventions outside the university: investigating patent ownership in the UK. Ind. Innov. 20:5 (2013), 385–398.
52. Lee, Y.S., The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: an empirical assessment. J. Technol. Transf. 25:2 (2000), 111–133.
53. Lendel, I., The impact of research universities on regional economies: the concept of university products. Econ. Dev. Q. 24:3 (2010), 210–230.
54. Levie, J., Autio, E., A theoretical grounding and test of the GEM model. Small Bus. Econ. 31:3 (2008), 235–263.
55. Lewis, P., Thomas, H., The linkage between strategy, strategic groups, and performance in the UK retail grocery industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 11:5 (1990), 385–397.
56. Link, A.N., Scott, J.T., Opening the ivory tower's door: an analysis of the determinants of the formation of US university spin-off companies. Res. Policy 34:7 (2005), 1106–1112.
57. Massa, L., Tucci, C.L., Afuah, A., A critical assessment of business model research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 11:1 (2017), 73–104.
58. Massa, L., Tucci, C.L., 2013. Business Model Innovation. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management, pp. 420–441.
59. McAdam, M., McAdam, R., High tech startups in University Science Park incubators: the relationship between the startup's lifecycle progression and use of the incubator's resources. Technovation 28:5 (2008), 277–290.
60. McAdam, M., Galbraith, B., McAdam, R., Humphreys, P., Business processes and networks in university incubators: a review and research agendas. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 18:5 (2006), 451–472.
61. McDougall, P.P., International versus domestic entrepreneurship: new venture strategic behavior and industry structure. J. Bus. Ventur. 4:6 (1989), 387–400.
62. McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, I.C., The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for Continuously Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty, 284, 2000, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
63. Merton, R.K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. 1973, Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.
64. Mets, T., Entrepreneurial business model for classical research university. Eng. Econ., 66(1), 2010.
65. Miller, K., McAdam, M., McAdam, R., The changing university business model: a stakeholder perspective. R&D Manag. 44:3 (2014), 265–287.
66. Moreno, A.M., Casillas, J.C., High-growth SMEs versus non-high-growth SMEs: a discriminant analysis. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 19:1 (2007), 69–88.
67. National Science Board, 2012. Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Available at: 〈http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/〉.
68. O'Kane, C., Mangematin, V., Geoghegan, W., Fitzgerald, C., University technology transfer offices: the search for identity to build legitimacy. Res. Policy 44:2 (2015), 421–437.
69. O'Donoghue, T., Punch, K., (eds.) Qualitative Educational Research in Action: Doing and Reflecting, 2003, Routledge, London.
70. Perkmann, M., Fini, R., Ross, J.M., Salter, A., Silvestri, C., Tartari, V., Accounting for universities’ impact: using augmented data to measure academic engagement and commercialization by academic scientists. Res. Eval. 24:4 (2015), 380–391.
71. Phan, P.H., Siegel, D.S., Wright, M., Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research. J. Bus. Ventur. 20:2 (2005), 165–182.
72. Powers, J.B., McDougall, P.P., University startup formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 20:3 (2005), 291–311.
73. Ramanujam, V., Venkatraman, N., Camillus, J.C., Multi-objective assessment of effectiveness of strategic planning: a discriminant analysis approach. Acad. Manag. J. 29:2 (1986), 347–372.
74. Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., Gulbrandsen, M., Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation 26:4 (2006), 518–533.
75. Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., Wright, M., The transformation of network ties to develop entrepreneurial competencies for university spin-offs. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 27:7–8 (2015), 430–457.
76. Roessner, D., Bond, J., Okubo, S., Planting, M., The economic impact of licensed commercialized inventions originating in university research. Res. Policy 42:1 (2013), 23–34.
77. Rumble, R., Mangematin, V., 2015. Business model implementation: the antecedents of multi-sidedness. In: Business Models and Modelling. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 97–131.
78. Schalock, R.L., Bonham, G.S., Measuring outcomes and managing for results. Eval. Program Plan. 26:3 (2003), 229–235.
79. Siegel, D.S., Phan, P., Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: implications for entrepreneurship education. Adv. Study Entrep. Innov. Econ. Growth 16 (2005), 1–38.
80. Siegel, D.S., Wright, M., Academic entrepreneurship: time for a rethink?. Br. J. Manag., 2015.
81. Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D., Link, A., Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Res. Policy 32:1 (2003), 27–48.
82. Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A., Atwater, L.E., Link, A.N., Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 21:1 (2004), 115–142.
83. Siegel, D.S., Wright, M., Lockett, A., The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: organizational and societal implications. Ind. Corp. Change 16:4 (2007), 489–504.
84. Slaughter, S., Rhoades, G., Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. 2004, JHU Press, Chicago.
85. Sorensen, J.A.T., Chambers, D.A., Evaluating academic technology transfer performance by how well access to knowledge is facilitated––defining an access metric. J. Technol. Transf. 33:5 (2008), 534–547.
86. Teece, D.J., Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan. 43:2 (2010), 172–194.
87. Thursby, J.G., Jensen, R., Thursby, M.C., Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major US universities. J. Technol. Transf. 26:1–2 (2001), 59–72.
88. Van Dierdonck, R., Debackere, K., Academic entrepreneurship at Belgian universities. R&D Manag. 18:4 (1988), 341–353.
89. Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., Debackere, K., Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: an empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Res. Policy 40:4 (2011), 553–564.
90. Vogel, R., Keen, W.H., Public higher education and New York state's economy. Econ. Dev. Q., 2010.
91. Wiklund, J., Shepherd, D., Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurational approach. J. Bus. Ventur. 20:1 (2005), 71–91.
92. Wright, M., Hmieleski, K.M., Siegel, D.S., Ensley, M.D., The role of human capital in technological entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 31:6 (2007), 791–806.
93. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., Knockaert, M., Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Res. Policy 37:8 (2008), 1205–1223.
94. Yin, R.K., Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. 2010, Guilford Press, New York.
95. Zott, C., Amit, R., Massa, L., The business model: recent developments and future research. J. Manag. 37 (2011), 1019–1042.