Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the UK’s HE-BCI survey

Focusing on the measurement of universities’ performance in knowledge transfer, we outline some critical issues connected with the choice of appropriate indicators: in particular, we argue that, in order to allow universities to correctly represent their knowledge transfer performance, indicators should include a variety of knowledge transfer activities, reflect a variety of impacts, allow comparability between institutions, and avoid the creation of perverse behavioural incentives. To illustrate these issues empirically, we discuss the case of the United Kingdom’s Higher Education –Business and Community Interaction (HE-BCI) survey. We show that the indicators used to measure and reward univ ersities’ engagement in knowledge transfer are not fully comprehensive, they are better suited to capture the impact of certain types of activities than othersand they are influenced by institutional strategies and characteristics rather than simply reflecting different performances. The conclusions explore some promising directions to address some of these problems

[2]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[3]  Wendy H. Schacht.  The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected Issues in Patent Policy and the Commercialization of Technology , 2012 .

[4]  Frank Ziegele,et al.  Multidimensional ranking : the design and development of u-multirank , 2012 .

[5]  Patrick Llerena,et al.  Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy , 2005 .

[6]  N. Harabi,et al.  Appropriability of technical innovations an empirical analysis , 1995 .

[7]  R. Lambert,et al.  Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration: Final Report , 2003 .

[8]  S. Winter,et al.  Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development , 1987 .

[9]  C. Antonelli.  Models of knowledge and systems of governance , 2005, Journal of Institutional Economics.

[10]  H. Grupp,et al.  Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance , 2010 .

[11]  Jonathan Liebenau.  Innovation in Pharmaceuticals : Industrial R&D in the early Twentieth Century : Research Policy , 1985 .

[12]  J. Molas-Gallart,et al.  Ambiguity and conflict in the development of ‘Third Mission’ indicators , 2006 .

[13]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[14]  S. Merry,et al.  Indicators as a Technology of Global Governance , 2010 .

[15]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[16]  Cinzia Daraio,et al.  The differentiation of the strategic profile of higher education institutions. New positioning indicators based on microdata , 2008, Scientometrics.

[17]  E. Mansfield.  Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study , 1986 .

[18]  Birgitte Andersen,et al.  Intellectual property (IP) governance in ICT firms: strategic value seeking through proprietary and non-proprietary IP transactions , 2012 .

[19]  R. Nelson.  The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[20]  Changfeng Wang,et al.  An empirical study on the relationship between properties of knowledge, network topology and corporation innovation performance , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Management Science and Engineering.

[21]  G. Dowling,et al.  Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance , 2002 .

[22]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities , 2001 .

[23]  Araújo,et al.  An Evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[24]  A. Jaffe,et al.  Innovation policy and the economy , 2001 .

[25]  M. Polanyi.  Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[26]  Fumi Kitagawa,et al.  Knowledge exchange: a comparison of policies, strategies, and funding incentives in English and Scottish higher education , 2013 .

[27]  P. Romer,et al.  Human Capital and Growth: Theory and Evidence , 1989 .

[28]  H. Lawton Smith,et al.  Measuring the performance of Oxford University, Oxford Brookes University and the government laboratories’ spin-off companies , 2006 .

[29]  Sally Engle Merry,et al.  Measuring the World Indicators , Human Rights , and Global Governance by , 2011 .

[30]  John P. Walsh,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[31]  B. Nooteboom.  Inter-Firm Collaboration, Learning and Networks: An Integrated Approach , 2003 .

[32]  Birgitte Andersen.  If ‘intellectual property rights’ is the answer, what is the question? Revisiting the patent controversies , 2004 .

[33]  Cristiano Antonelli,et al.  The Business Governance of Localized Knowledge: An Information Economics Approach for the Economics of Knowledge , 2006 .

[34]  I. Ràfols,et al.  Towards indicators for ‘ opening up ’ science and technology policy , 2012 .

[35]  Rna Rudi Bekkers,et al.  Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? , 2008 .

[36]  Pablo D'Este,et al.  University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? , 2007 .

[37]  Philip Ternouth,et al.  Universities, business and knowledge exchange , 2008 .

[38]  Scott Shane,et al.  Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? , 2003 .

[39]  Anthony Arundel,et al.  Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms , 2004 .

[40]  G. Ryle,et al.  心的概念 = The concept of mind , 1962 .

[41]  Jonathan Haskel,et al.  Public Support for Innovation, Intangible Investment and Productivity Growth in the UK Market Sector , 2010, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[42]  T. Hughes,et al.  Scholarship That Matters : Academic – Practitioner Engagement in Business and Management , 2011 .

[43]  Robert E. Litan,et al.  Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches , 2007, Innovation Policy and the Economy.

[44]  J. Christensen.  Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment , 2008 .

[45]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[46]  Rudi Bekkers,et al.  Analysing preferences for knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? , 2008 .

[47]  C. Brodhag.  Research universities, technology transfer, and job creation: what infrastructure, for what training? , 2013 .

[48]  Steven Puro,et al.  Science and Technology Policy: Priorities of Governments , 1981 .

[49]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Risk, uncertainty and precaution: some instrumental implications from the social sciences , 2003 .

[50]  A. Kleinknecht,et al.  Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: an exploration of CIS micro data , 1999 .

[51]  J R Killian.  Science and Public Policy: Recent actions by the Federal Government in helping science and technology help the nation are surveyed. , 1959, Science.

[52]  Richard A. Jensen,et al.  University-Industry Spillovers, Government Funding, and Industrial Consulting , 2010 .

[53]  G. J. Persley,et al.  Intellectual property management. , 1990 .

[54]  Martin T. Holi.  Metrics for the Evaluation of Knowledge Transfer Activities at Universities , 2008 .

[55]  Cristiano Antonelli,et al.  The new economics of the university: a knowledge governance approach , 2008 .

[56]  V. Gilsing,et al.  A system failure framework for innovation policy design , 2005 .

[57]  J. S. Katz,et al.  Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation , 2000 .

[58]  Claudia De Fuentes,et al.  Channels of interaction between public research organisations and industry and their benefits: evidence from Mexico , 2010 .

[59]  G. Dosi,et al.  Technical Change and Economic Theory , 1989 .

[60]  Apresentação Paulo Bastos Tigre.  Bengt-Åke Lundvall - Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation , 2009 .

[61]  P. Boardman,et al.  University researchers working with private companies , 2009 .

[62]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Towards indicators for opening up S&T policy , 2013 .

[63]  Mike Wright,et al.  Mid-range universities' linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries , 2008 .

[64]  D. Mowery,et al.  The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments? , 2004 .

[65]  R. Nelson,et al.  The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate , 1998 .

[66]  Birgitte Andersen,et al.  Inefficiencies in markets for intellectual property rights: experiences of academic and public research institutions , 2012 .

[67]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Inter-Firm Collaboration, Learning and Networks , 2004 .

[68]  Nancy E. Grund.  Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image , 1996 .

[69]  G. Dosi,et al.  The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’ , 2006 .

[70]  G. Meyer-Thurow,et al.  The Industrialization of Invention: A Case Study from the German Chemical Industry , 1982, Isis.

[71]  Paul A. David,et al.  The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness , 2000 .